[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1288-1353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31142]
[[Page 1287]]
Vol. 90
Tuesday,
No. 4
January 7, 2025
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child
Restraint Anchorage Systems, Incorporation by Reference; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 1288]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0089]
RIN 2127-AL20
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems,
Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, Incorporation by Reference
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 225; Child restraint systems, and FMVSS No. 213b; Child
restraint systems, to improve ease-of-use of the lower and tether
anchorages, improve correct use of child restraint systems in vehicles,
and maintain or improve the correct use and effectiveness of child
restraint systems (CRSs) in motor vehicles. This final rule fulfills a
mandate of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-
21) requiring that NHTSA improve the ease-of-use for lower anchorages
and tethers in all rear seat positions.
DATES:
Effective date: March 10, 2025.
IBR date: The incorporation by reference of certain publications
listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register
beginning March 10, 2025.
Compliance date: This final rule adopts a 3-year phase-in period to
comply with the updated requirements in FMVSS No. 225. The phase-in
begins on September 1, 2028, and requires that 20 percent of a
manufacturer's applicable vehicles produced from September 1, 2028, to
August 31, 2029, comply with the updated FMVSS No. 225, followed by 50
percent from September 1, 2029, to August 31, 2030, and 100 percent on
and after September 1, 2030. Early compliance is permitted.
Reconsideration date: If you wish to petition for reconsideration
of this rule, your petition must be received by February 21, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions
received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit your
complete submission, including the information you claim to be
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you
should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above. When you send a submission containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). Please see further
information in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this
preamble.
Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is
able to search the electronic form of all documents 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 (65
FR19477-78) or you may visit www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (phone: 202-
366-6345). For legal issues, you may call Natasha Reed, Office of the
Chief Counsel (phone: 202-366-2992). The mailing address of these
officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141),
this final rule amends FMVSS No. 225 \1\ and 213b \2\ to improve the
ease-of-use of child restraint anchorage systems. MAP-21 Section 31502
requires the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to
improve the ease-of-use for lower anchorages and tethers in all rear
seat seating positions if such anchorages and tethers are feasible.
Section 31502 of MAP-21 states that the Secretary must issue a final
rule unless such an amendment to FMVSS No. 225 does not meet the
requirements and considerations set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of
section 30111 of title 49, United States Code (the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)). NHTSA is issuing this final
rule, as directed by MAP-21, after determining that the rule meets the
requirements and considerations of section 30111(a) and (b) of the
Safety Act. This final rule also fulfils NHTSA's goal of improving the
usability of child restraint anchorage systems.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 571.225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems.''
\2\ The 2015 NPRM proposed changes to FMVSS No. 213; however,
NHTSA recently amended FMVSS No. 213 and issued FMVSS No. 213b for
plain language reasons relating to multiple compliance dates of the
amendments (88 FR 84514). NHTSA decided the requirements would be
easier to read and understand if the agency issued amendments
becoming effective on December 5, 2024, for FMVSS No. 213 and
December 5, 2026, for FMVSS No. 213b.
\3\ NHTSA's 2011-2013 Priority Plan. Link: www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2009-0108-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding
this final rule on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3744). In this final rule
preamble, NHTSA is using the term ``child restraint anchorage system''
(CRAS) to refer to the full vehicle system \4\ that is designed for
attaching a child restraint system (CRS) to a vehicle at a particular
designated seating position (DSP).'' \5\ NHTSA also uses the term
``lower anchorages'' for the lower anchorage points of a CRAS. The
agency refers to the tether securement point as a ``tether anchorage.''
For the CRS, this preamble
[[Page 1289]]
uses the following terms to refer to the various parts of a child
restraint that connect to the CRAS, as appropriate: ``child restraint
system connectors'' (or ``CRS connectors''), ``lower anchorage
connector(s),'' ``tether anchorage connector,'' ``tether strap,'' and
``tether hook.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A full vehicle child restraint anchorage system has two
lower anchorages and one tether anchorage in a designated seating
position.
\5\ Many in the child passenger safety community refer to the
child restraint anchorage system as the ``LATCH'' system, an
abbreviation of the phrase ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children.'' This term was developed by a group of manufacturers and
retailers soon after the 1999 final rule (64 FR 10786) to educate
consumers on the availability and use of the anchorage system and
for marketing purposes. ``LATCH'' has historically been used in
various field materials and by NHTSA to refer to the vehicle 3-point
child restraint anchorage system. However, the term has also been
used to refer to only the lower two anchorages of the system, or to
refer to the connectors of the child restraint system that attach to
the lower anchorages. Further, NHTSA understands many consumers
identify the tether anchorage solely with the ``LATCH'' system, and
thus mistakenly do not attach the CRS's tether strap when using the
vehicle belt system to attach a child restraint. As such, NHTSA has
chosen to avoid using the term ``LATCH'' in this document where
possible to avoid ambiguity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Statutory Authority
III. Summary of the NPRM
IV. High Level Summary of the Comments Received
V. Improving the Ease of Using Lower Anchorages
a. Attaching to the Lower Anchorages
b. Post-NPRM Research
c. Summary of Decision on Assessing Usability of Lower
Anchorages
d. Detailed Agency Decisions Regarding the Tools and Performance
Criteria
VI. Improving the Ease of Using the Tether Anchorage
a. Attaching to the Tether Anchorage
b. Tightening the Tether
c. Noticing the Tether Anchorage
d. Recognizing the Tether Anchorages
VII. Conspicuity and Identification of Vehicle Anchorages and CRS
Connectors
a. General Comments and Agency Responses
b. Lower Anchorage Marking Comments and Agency Responses
c. Tether Anchorage and Connector Marking Comments and Agency
Responses
d. Tether Anchorage Marking Comments and Agency Responses
VIII. Applying FMVSS No. 225 to Vehicles Currently Excluded
IX. Public Responses To Request for Comments and NHTSA's Views
a. Center Rear Seat--Dedicated, Shared or No Lower Anchorages
b. Third Row
c. Terminology
d. Recommendation for Tether Anchorage Use Regardless of Child
Weight
X. Housekeeping
XI. Lead Time and Phase-In
XII. Cost Benefit Analysis
XIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
I. Executive Summary
a. Introduction
This final rule amends FMVSS No. 225 to improve the usability
(ease-of-use) of the standardized CRASs required by the standard. Prior
to FMVSS No. 225, CRSs were anchored to a vehicle seat solely by the
seat belt. Because seat belts are primarily designed for passengers and
not child restraints, incompatibilities existed between seat belts and
CRSs. NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 225 in response to this problem to
optimize the safety performance and ease of the correct use of child
restraints through a dedicated CRAS. The standard aims to reduce the
likelihood of an anchorage system's failure and increase the likelihood
that CRSs are properly secured to achieve the CRS's safety benefits
during motor vehicle crashes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 49 CFR 571.225, S1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CRAS required by FMVSS No. 225 entails a 3-point system
consisting of two lower anchorages and a tether anchorage, designed for
attaching a CRS to a vehicle. Each lower anchorage consists of a 6-
millimeter (mm) diameter straight rod, or ``bar,'' onto which a CRS
connector can be attached.\7\ The two lower anchorage bars are
typically located at or near the seat bight (the area where a seat
cushion intersects with the seatback) in a position where they will not
be felt by seated adult occupants. The tether anchorage is a
permanently installed vehicle system to which a CRS tether hook can be
attached.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ When NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 225, the agency also amended
FMVSS No. 213 to require child restraint systems to have the CRS
connectors permanently attached to each child restraint. In the case
of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the base
is required to have the components.
\8\ FMVSS No. 225 requires vehicles with three or more forward-
facing designated rear seating positions to be equipped with child
restraint anchorage systems at not fewer than two forward-facing
designated rear seating positions and a tether anchorage at an
additional designated rear seating position. If the vehicle has
fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions,
fewer child restraint anchorage systems are required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRASs meeting FMVSS No. 225 and child restraints meeting the
associated requirements of FMVSS No. 213 have been successfully
implemented in the fleet since the implementation of FMVSS No. 225.
According to a 2006 study by Decina, consumers who use the CRAS
generally like the system \9\ and prefer using lower anchorages to
attach child restraints to the vehicle over seat belt attachments. The
study also found that CRASs help reduce the incorrect installation of
child restraints (61 percent of CRSs installed with CRAS were securely
installed compared to 40-46 percent of CRSs that were securely
installed using seat belts).\10\ However, the study found many
consumers do not use CRASs because they do not know enough about the
systems.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Decina, L., et al., ``Child Restraint Use Survey: LATCH Use
and Misuse,'' December 2006, (``Decina study''), DOT HS 810 679,
Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26735. The Decina study is summarized in
Appendix A to the NPRM preamble.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gathered data also indicates that many consumers misuse the CRAS or
find aspects of it difficult to use. Specifically, in 2007 NHTSA held a
public meeting on CRAS to see how the systems could be improved.\12\
Attendees repeatedly stated that lower anchorages were often embedded
deep into the seat bight, making it difficult for consumers to reach
the lower anchorages and attach the lower anchorage connectors.
Attendees also indicated that it was difficult to attach lower
anchorage connectors to the lower anchorages because of surrounding
stiff cushions, stiff fabric/leather, or the proximity of seat belt
buckles. In response to comments received at the public meeting NHTSA
studied possible ways to improve the usability of CRASs.\13\ NHTSA used
the information obtained from these studies to assist in responding to
the 2012 Congressional mandate set forth in section 31502(b)(1) of MAP-
21 in 2012, publishing an NPRM on January 23, 2015, to commence
rulemaking to improve the ease-of-use of child restraint anchorage
systems.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Docket No. NHTSA-07-26833. A summary of the public meeting
can be found in Appendix B to the NPRM preamble.
\13\ NHTSA included plans to address the CRAS usability concerns
raised at the 2007 LATCH public meeting in its Vehicle Safety and
Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan (2011-2013).
Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108-0032.
\14\ Further background on the development of the NPRM can be
found in the NPRM preamble. NHTSA discusses its reasons for using
the UMTRI LATCH Usability study, infra, in section III of the NPRM
(80 FR 3748-3753).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Summary of the Final Rule
This final rule adopts most, but not all, of the proposals in the
NPRM to improve CRAS ease-of-use. This final rule also adjusts several
provisions in response to comments received on the NPRM.
1. This final rule amends FMVSS No. 225 to enhance requirements for
the usability of CRASs. The final rule's requirements are based in part
on findings from the University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) about characteristics of the vehicle seat that
enhance the usability of CRASs (``LATCH Usability study'').\15\ This
final rule adopts a ``clearance angle'' for each lower anchorage of at
least 54 degrees (clearance angle relates to the clearance around a
lower anchorage from interfering parts that can make it difficult to
maneuver the CRS lower anchorage connector) and an ``anchorage depth''
limit (location of the lower anchorage within the seat bight)
[[Page 1290]]
of less than 25 millimeters (mm). Although the 2015 NPRM included an
``attachment force'' limit, NHTSA has decided not to adopt an
attachment force requirement in this final rule based on comments
received and additional study by NHTSA. This final rule's clearance
angle and anchorage depth limit requirements will substantially improve
consumer ease in using the lower anchorages of CRASs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Klinich et al., supra. Link: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/90856. The report was sponsored by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) for developing IIHS's rating of
the usability of the child restraint anchorage systems in various
vehicles. See IIHS Status Report: Vol. 47 No. 3, April 12, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. This final rule modifies the hand-held tools used to measure
clearance angle and anchorage depth proposed in the NPRM. Comments
received stated that the proposed tools yielded inconsistent results
and were hard to use. In response, NHTSA undertook several studies,
discussed below in this preamble, to refine the proposed tools and
validate their improved repeatability and reproducibility in
measurements. This final rule adopts these improved test tools.
3. This final rule restricts tether anchorages from being placed
under a vehicle seat or hidden under vehicle components other than a
marked tether anchorage cover. The rule also restricts how close the
tether anchorage can be from the child restraint, (a too-close tether
anchorage can make it impossible to tighten the tether strap properly),
but does not adopt the location requirements that were detailed in the
NPRM. Some vehicle manufacturers stated that the proposed requirements
were too restrictive, involved a procedure that was not executable in
certain vehicles, or would result in costly redesign. The procedure
adopted in this final rule is less restrictive than those proposed in
the NPRM, is clear to execute, and in some cases affects the re-
location of the tether by a shorter distance or not at all. NHTSA is
also giving more lead time coupled with a 3-year phase-in of the
requirements to lessen the burdens of redesigning vehicles and to
reduce costs.
4. This final rule amends FMVSS No. 225 to make tether anchorages
easier to use by standardizing the configuration of the anchorage such
that it is ``a rigid bar of any cross-section shape.'' However, in
response to comments, the rule allows vehicles with unique space
limitations in the vehicle interior, such as buses, light trucks, and
convertibles, to have flexible anchorages that can also be used as a
tether strap routing device.
5. This final rule standardizes the markings that will indicate to
consumers the location and presence of the lower anchorages and the
tether anchorage. These new markings are based on improved anchorage
marking designs developed by the International Standardization
Organization (ISO). Specifically, this final rule amends FMVSS Nos. 225
and 213b to require, among other things, vehicles and CRSs to use a
standardized symbol to more clearly identify vehicle anchorages and CRS
components that attach to those anchorages. With these markings all
consumers can easily look for the specific marks and ``match up'' the
symbols on the vehicle to the symbols on the child restraint.
6. This final rule amends FMVSS Nos. 213b to require the top tether
hook and attachment hardware on child restraint systems to be limited
in length, as proposed in the NPRM.
This preamble discusses these amendments and others in detail
below.
c. How This Final Rule Differs From the NPRM
Highlighted below are the main differences between the NPRM and
this final rule. More minor changes (e.g., how a tool is oriented
during a test) are not highlighted here but are discussed in the
sections relevant to the topic.
The final rule differs from the NPRM in the following ways:
This final rule does not adopt the proposed requirement
for maximum attachment force of 178 Newtons (N) (40 lbf) to the lower
anchorages to improve ease-of-use. NHTSA worked to improve the
repeatability of the attachment force tool and conducted a
repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) study. Results showed that the
force measurements were not repeatable or reproducible enough to be
adopted because the force attachment tool measurements contain too much
variance.
This final rule fine-tunes the proposed Clearance Angle
and Depth Tools to achieve greater R&R in measurements. The
improvements to the tools address comments on variability and
subjectivity of the measurements. The improved tools incorporate new or
additional instrumentation or features to enable consistent and non-
subjective measurements.
This final rule specifies that the lower anchorage must be
located 25 mm or less within the seat bight instead of the 20 mm within
the seat bight proposed by the NPRM. This increase in depth measurement
takes into consideration the manufacturing variability across vehicles
of the same model.
This final rule does not adopt the proposed requirement
for 165 mm minimum distance of a tether anchorage from a reference
point on a vehicle seat to provide enough clearance for tightening the
tether strap. Instead, this final rule requires the tether anchorages
for vehicle seats with no head restraint or with adjustable or
removable head restraints to be located outside of a zone bounded by a
325 mm radius sphere centered at the R-point of the vehicle seat and
truncated by a horizontal plane located 230 mm below the sphere's
center. This change was made to address multiple concerns from
commenters. For example, the new zone addresses the difficulty of
defining the proposed reference point (SB) and uses an already defined
reference point in the standard (R-point). This measurement also takes
into consideration the seat's depth to account for the distance that is
routed over the seat towards the CRS, addressing a concern raised by
one commenter. The new measurement required by this final rule will
result in fewer vehicle models requiring tether anchorage relocation.
Additionally, for those vehicle models requiring the relocation of
tether anchorages, the relocation distance will, in most cases, be
reduced. The final rule does not require vehicle seats with fixed head
restraints to comply with the minimum distance of a tether anchorage
from the R-point, as such seats do not have any elements that would
interfere with the installation and tightening of the tether. To reduce
cost burdens on the vehicles that will need redesign, we have extended
the lead time for manufacturers to comply by introducing a 3-year
phase-in that will begin on the first September 1 that is three years
after publication of the final rule.
This final rule revises the proposed forward-most
allowable tether anchorage zone under the seat from the ``plane
parallel to the torso line passing through the rearmost point of the
bottom of the seat'' to a ``vertical transverse plane 120 mm rearward
of the seating reference point.'' Commenters stated that the proposed
allowable tether anchorage zone based on the rearmost point of the
bottom of the seat may not be objectively determined in some seat
designs. Additionally, commenters stated that some current seat designs
with easily accessible tether anchorages located slightly under the
back of the seat may not be compliant with the proposed tether
anchorage zone. This final rule's alternative measurement can be
objectively determined for all seat designs, will allow tether
anchorages that are on the seatback but still accessible, and will
prevent tether anchorages that are deep under the seat.
This final rule provides exceptions to the NPRM's
originally proposed requirement that all tether anchorages be rigid
bars. Tether anchorages will not
[[Page 1291]]
be required to be rigid bars for buses with a GVWR less than or equal
to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and for vehicles with DSPs where the
``allowable tether zone'' in FMVSS No. 225 falls in an area that is
only accessible by removing a seating component of the vehicle. These
vehicles can be equipped with tether strap routing devices that can be
used as tether anchorages. Commenters stated that flexible tether
anchorages (that can also be used as routing devices) in vehicles such
as pick-up trucks are easy to use for installing CRSs but would no
longer be permitted under the proposed requirements for rigid tether
anchorages. If only rigid bar tether anchorages are permitted, the
allowable locations for these tether anchorages would be behind the
seatback where folding the seat or moving the seat forward is necessary
to access the tether anchorage. Such a seat design requires an
iterative tensioning of the tether to install a CRS, which is more
time-consuming and difficult. Therefore, the agency is continuing to
allow flexible anchorages in vehicle that cannot locate the tether
anchorage in the allowable zone.
This final rule updates the tolerances and positioning of
lower and tether anchorages markings to that proposed in response to
comments received. This final rule increases the tolerances of the
position of the markings from that proposed in the NPRM and makes some
allowances on the position of the markings to accommodate a variety of
vehicle designs.
This final rule adopts a 3-year phase-in period to comply
with the updated requirements in FMVS No. 225. The phase-in period
starts on the first September 1 that is three years after the
publication of the final rule. This additional lead time and phase-in
period will reduce potential tooling costs by allowing manufacturers
the opportunity to make required changes to subject vehicles during
their regular design update cycles.
d. Rulemaking Goals
The requirements of this final rule, aimed at increasing consumer
use of CRASs for the installation of CRSs, will make the CRASs more
conspicuous and easy to use.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NHTSA designed FMVSS No. 213 and No. 225 to require each
applicable child restraint to be able to attach to a vehicle seat by
way of the CRAS, and additionally by way of the seat belt
(continuing what was done prior to the standard, so that child
restraints could continue to be attached using the seat belt, which
is at every designated seating position in a vehicle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If CRASs becomes easier to use correctly, more consumers will
achieve a tight fit of the CRS in the vehicle, resulting in reduced
child head and torso excursions in motor vehicle crashes, and thus
fewer child head and torso injuries from crashes. The goal of this
rulemaking is supported by studies showing that many consumers are not
aware of or do not fully understand the CRASs available in their
vehicle. Specifically, the 2006 Decina study found that many consumers
did not know about CRASs, that CRASs were available in their vehicle,
the importance of using CRASs to install CRSs, or how to properly use
CRASs. The Decina study also found that users attempting to use CRASs
generally liked the systems, and that drivers with experience attaching
a CRS using a CRAS strongly preferred using a CRAS's lower anchorages
over seat belts. Moreover, the study found consumers were more likely
to install a CRS correctly using a CRAS than a seat belt. Finally, the
LATCH Usability study found that test subjects who correctly used the
lower anchorage hardware were 3.3 times more likely to achieve a tight
CRS installation than subjects who made errors using the hardware.
e. NHTSA's Determination of MAP-21 Requirements and Considerations
This final rule satisfies subtitle E, Section 31502 of the ``Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21). Section 31502(a)
requires NHTSA (by delegation of authority 49 U.S.C. 30111) to initiate
a rulemaking proceeding to improve the ease-of-use for lower anchorages
and tether anchorages in all rear designated seating positions if such
anchorages and tether anchorages are feasible. Section 31502(b)(1) of
MAP-21 states that, subject to exceptions, NHTSA (by delegation) must
issue a final rule. An exception is for an amendment to Standard No.
225 which ``does not meet the requirements and considerations set forth
in subsections (a) and (b) of section 30111 of title 49, United States
Code [the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety
Act)].'' As discussed below, NHTSA has made such a determination
regarding the final rule amendments to FMVSS No. 225 to improve the
ease-of-use of the CRAS.
The provision at 49 U.S.C. 30111(a) of the Safety Act authorizes
the Secretary (NHTSA, by delegation) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle
safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle
safety, and are stated in objective terms. ``Motor vehicle safety'' is
defined in the Safety Act as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against
unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design,
construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes
nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.'' \17\ This final rule meets
the need for motor vehicle safety because it would increase the
likelihood that CRASs and CRSs will be correctly used, thereby reducing
the risk of injury to restrained children in motor vehicle crashes.
This final rule improves the correct use of CRASs and CRSs by requiring
the lower anchorages and tether anchorage of the CRAS to be more
accessible, easy to use, and clearly labeled so that consumers can
easily identify and use them. This final rule is practicable because a
number of vehicle and child restraint models already meet the
requirements of the final rule. NHTSA is also providing a substantial
lead time to meet the requirements. Some vehicle seat designs will
change pursuant to the rule, but the redesigns would involve relatively
straightforward modifications to the existing vehicle materials (i.e.,
the seat cushion); most vehicles will not have to change the vehicle
structure. This final rule is objective because the requirements are
stated in unambiguous terms and assessed using tools and procedures
with demonstrated R&R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49 U.S.C. 30111(b) specifies that, when prescribing Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, the Secretary (NHTSA, by delegation) must,
among other things, consider all relevant, available motor vehicle
safety information, consider whether a standard is reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate for the types of motor vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed, and consider the extent
to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing
traffic crashes and associated deaths and injuries. NHTSA has
determined that this final rule is reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate for the types of motor vehicles and child restraint systems
for which it is prescribed. This final rule accounts for challenges
that buses and light trucks could have in meeting the proposed
requirement that all tether anchorages be rigid bars located in a
particular zone. Among other things, the rule permits these vehicles to
have tether strap routing devices that can be used as the tether
anchorage if the rigid bar is not feasible.
NHTSA considered existing industry standards and conducted
extensive research prior to the finalization of this
[[Page 1292]]
final rule to improve the tools and test procedures in existing
industry standards to ensure objectivity of the ease-of-use
assessments. NHTSA's assessments indicate that most vehicle models and
child restraints already comply with the requirements of the final
rule. For products that do not, the final rule provides ample lead time
for modifications to be implemented with little to no cost.
f. Estimated Costs and Benefits
The agency estimates that the adopted requirements for improved
usability of CRASs would not result in any increase in material cost
but would entail some redesign of vehicle seat features. In response to
the comments received, NHTSA is providing a 3-year phase-in period to
comply with the updated FMVSS No. 225 requirements. The phase-in period
starts on the first September 1 that is three years after the
publication of the final rule. We believe this approach would respond
to commenters' concerns and provide sufficient time for vehicle
manufacturers to accommodate any redesign of the vehicle seat and rear
shelf structures to meet this final rule in their normal course of
manufacture without a cost increase.
NHTSA estimates the cost of ISO markings for a set of lower
anchorages to be $0.07 and that for the tether anchorage to be $0.03.
The total incremental cost of equipping all CRASs with appropriate ISO
markings is about $760,000. The final rule also requires similar ISO
markings on child restraint anchorage connectors, for which the agency
estimates an incremental cost of $970,000. The cost of changing the
written instructions accompanying the vehicle or the CRS to explain the
ISO markings is expected to be negligible (<<$0.01). Therefore, the
total cost of the proposed rule is estimated to be $1.73 million.
These new usability requirements will assist in improving correct
(tight) installation and increase tether use. If there were a 5 percent
increase in correct installation using the lower anchors and a 5
percent increase in tether use, the agency estimates that the proposed
requirements would save approximately 3 lives and prevent 6 moderate to
higher severity injuries per year.
II. Statutory Authority
This final rule is issued under the Safety Act \18\ (49 U.S.C.
30101 et seq.) and MAP-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation \19\ is
responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are
practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in
objective terms.\20\ ``Motor vehicle safety'' is defined in the Safety
Act as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of
accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance
of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in
an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.''
\21\ ``Motor vehicle safety standard'' means a minimum performance
standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.\22\ When
prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all relevant,
available motor vehicle safety information, and consider whether a
standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the types of
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed.\23\ The Secretary must also consider the extent to which
the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic
crashes and associated deaths and injuries.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor
vehicle safety standards is delegated to NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95.
\20\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\21\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
\22\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
\23\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAP-21
MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) incorporates Subtitle E, ``Child Safety
Standards.'' Subtitle E, section 31502(a), requires that not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary (NHTSA, by
delegation) shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend FMVSS No.
225 ``to improve the ease-of-use for lower anchorages and tethers in
all rear seat seating positions if such anchorages and tethers are
feasible.'' NHTSA published the NPRM preceding this final rule on
January 23, 2015. Section 31502(b)(1) of MAP-21 states that, subject to
exceptions, the Secretary must issue a final rule not later than 3
years after the date of enactment of MAP-21. An exception is for an
amendment to Standard No. 225 which ``does not meet the requirements
and considerations set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of section
30111 of title 49, United States Code [the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)].'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA interprets section 31502(a) as directing DOT to initiate
rulemaking to improve the ease-of-use of lower anchorages and tether
anchorages currently required by FMVSS No. 225 if improved anchorages
are feasible.\26\ This final rule satisfies the mandate by adopting
requirements that will improve the ease with which consumers can access
and use the anchorages and improve the visibility of the anchorages so
that consumers can more easily identify them as parts of a CRAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 80 FR 3747 Section II. Statutory Mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA carefully considered the potential merits of requiring
additional CRASs in vehicles, with the NPRM requesting comment on
whether additional lower anchorages and tether anchorages should be
required in vehicles. Manufacturers commented that it is difficult to
have additional CRAS systems due to spacing and complex designs that
may increase misuse of the lower anchorages. Following careful
consideration and review of comments, NHTSA has determined the
available data does not support a safety need to require additional
CRASs or tether anchorages in vehicles already covered under FMVSS No.
225.
The NPRM also requested comment on the merits and feasibility of
installing tether anchorages and lower anchorages in vehicles excluded
from such requirements by the issuance of FMVSS No. 225 in 1999. This
final rule removes the current exclusion from tether anchorages for
convertible vehicles \27\ and vehicles described in FMVSS No. 225 S5(e)
from having to provide lower anchorages and a tether anchorage in rear
designated seating positions. This decision was made based on the
agency's determination that installing the tether and lower anchorages
in these previously excluded vehicles is practicable \28\ and, given
data showing the benefits of tether anchorages and CRASs, will meet the
need for safety. These topics are discussed in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ S5(a) of FMVSS No. 225.
\28\ There are vehicles that have solved the challenges of
providing lower anchorages and tether anchorages, proving that
solutions are feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 31502 gives NHTSA no discretion in issuing a final rule if
a rule would meet the conditions set forth in MAP-21. As discussed
above, NHTSA has determined that amending FMVSS No. 225 as set forth in
this final rule meets the requirements and considerations established
in subsections (a) and (b) of 49 U.S.C 30111 and are feasible.
Accordingly,
[[Page 1293]]
NHTSA is issuing this final rule as mandated by MAP-21.
III. Summary of the NPRM
The NPRM proposed to reduce the physical difficulties associated
with attaching a child restraint to the lower anchorages and to the
tether anchorage, and to improve how easily a consumer can identify the
anchorages and match them up with parts on a child restraint system.
Regarding the physicality of using the vehicle's CRAS, the proposed
changes to FMVSS No. 225 were based on the findings in UMTRI's LATCH
Usability study, supra, about characteristics of the vehicle seat that
enhance the usability of CRASs. NHTSA proposed the limits on the
clearance angle, attachment force, and the depth of the anchorage in
the seat bight to address the ease-of-use problems described in the
Decina study, supra, and expressed by various attendees to the 2007
public meeting. The NPRM's proposals are further summarized below.
Ease of Using Lower Anchorages
Although FMVSS No. 225's current requirements for the location of
lower anchorage bars near the seat bight intend for the bars to be
accessible, some consumers find it difficult to use the bars. NHTSA
proposed new requirements for the bars to improve ease-of-use: a
minimum ``clearance angle'' of 54 degrees (clearance angle relates to
the clearance around a lower anchorage from interfering parts that can
make it difficult to maneuver the CRS's lower anchorage connector), a
maximum ``attachment force'' of 178 N (40 lbf), and an ``anchorage
depth'' of less than 20 millimeters (mm)). These are the ease-of-use
specifications the UMTRI LATCH Usability study found to correlate with
correct child restraint installation by test subjects.
In accordance with the LATCH Usability study, NHTSA proposed the
use of three new tools: one to measure clearance angle, another to
measure attachment force, and a third to determine anchorage depth.
Clearance angle would be measured by a tool based on a Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) draft J2893 recommended practice that
attaches to the lower anchorages. Attachment force would be measured by
a force gauge. Anchorage depth would be measured by a simple tool,
similar to one UMTRI developed, with a hook-type CRS connector marked
every 20 mm. The NPRM also proposed to incorporate by reference drawing
packages into FMVSS No. 225.
Ease of Using Tether Anchorages
FMVSS No. 225 currently requires tether anchorages to be located in
a specified zone and to be accessible without the need for any tools
other than a screwdriver or coin. To improve the usability of the
tether anchorage, NHTSA proposed the following requirements to make it
easier for consumers to recognize and access the anchorage.
The NPRM proposed to reduce the zone in which a tether
anchorage must be located, to prevent tether anchorages from being
placed deep under a vehicle seat.
The tether anchorages would have to be accessible without
the need for any tools and without folding the seatback or removing
carpet or other vehicle components. The tether anchorage could be
covered with a cap, flap, or cover, provided that the cap, flap, or
cover is specifically designed to be opened, moved aside, or to
otherwise give access to the anchorage without the use of any tools and
is labeled with a specific symbol indicting the presence of the tether
anchorage underneath.
Some tether anchorages are too close to a structure, such
as a head restraint, to allow tightening of the tether strap. NHTSA
proposed to specify a minimum 165 mm (6.5 in) distance from a specified
reference point on the vehicle seat to the tether anchorage so that
adequate clearance will be provided for tightening of the tether strap.
Currently, there are some tether anchorages made from
flexible webbing. NHTSA proposed to require that the tether anchorage
be a standardized rigid bar so consumers could more easily recognize
and find it.
NHTSA proposed to limit the length of the CRS tether
hardware assembly (which consists of a tether hook and hardware to
tighten and loosen the tether strap) to 165 mm (6.5 in) so that the
tightening mechanism can be easily used in the clearance space around a
tether anchorage.
Enhanced Ability To Identify Anchorages
In relation to consumers' seeing or recognizing the anchorages,
FMVSS No. 225 currently requires the lower anchorage bars to be
visible, or that the vehicle seat back be marked showing the location
of the bars. To improve consumers' ability to see, recognize, and use
lower anchorages, NHTSA proposed to require that motor vehicles be
marked with a standardized ISO-developed marking near the location of
each lower anchorage bar even when the lower anchorage is visible.
Similarly, tether anchorages would be marked with the ISO-developed
marking. To complement these markings, NHTSA proposed that child
restraints bear the same ISO marking on the lower anchorage connectors
on the child restraint system and on the tether hook or tether strap,
so consumers could be taught to match up the symbols when they attach a
CRS.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The NPRM also proposed to require vehicle and child
restraint manufacturers to provide written information (e.g., in
owners' manuals) explaining the meaning of the ISO markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. High Level Summary of the Comments Received
NHTSA received submissions from 30 entities. The commenters fell
into the following general categories: vehicle manufacturers or
associations (the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),
Association of Global Automakers (Global),\30\ Ford Motor Company
(Ford), General Motors Company (GM), American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
(Honda), Fiat Chrysler Automobiles U.S. (Chrysler),\31\ Toyota Motor
North America (Toyota), Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche), and
Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai)); child restraint manufacturers (the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), Britax Child
Safety, Inc. (Britax), Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel), and Graco
Children's Products, Inc. (Graco)); suppliers (Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association (MEMA), and HSM Transportation Solutions,
Inc. (HSM)); auto dealers (National Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA)); forensics experts (ARCCA); consumer advocacy groups (Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Safe Kids Worldwide (Safe
Kids), Safe Ride News (Safe Ride News); research-associated
organizations (University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
(UMTRI), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), MGA Research
Corporation (MGA), Consumer Union \32\); and other (including private
individuals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The Alliance and Global later merged and became the Auto
Innovators. This document refers to these commenters in the name in
which the comment was submitted.
\31\ Fiat Chrysler Automobiles U.S. is now Stellantis North
America.
\32\ Consumers Union is the public policy and advocacy division
of Consumer Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was almost unanimous agreement for improving the ease-of-use
of CRASs. However, commenters varied in their support for specific
requirements in the proposal. Many vehicle manufacturers expressed
concern about the extent of changes needed to meet some of the
[[Page 1294]]
requirements. Specifically, the manufacturers expressed concerns over
extensive redesign to relocate tether anchorages, costs of relocating
the tether anchorage, and challenges of meeting some of the lower
anchorage requirements given the involvement of soft seating surfaces.
Some manufacturers stated there was no need to specify all three
requirements (clearance angle, attachment force, and anchorage depth).
Suppliers urged NHTSA to provide more flexibility in marking vehicle
seats to identify lower anchorage locations so suppliers could avoid
extensive redesigns that would impose costs on suppliers and vehicle
manufacturers. Several vehicle manufacturers stated that the clearance
angle, attachment force, and anchorage depth test tools did not produce
repeatable or reproducible measurements, stating the proposed test
procedures were ambiguous and could not be followed. Vehicle
manufacturers generally objected to the proposed 3-year lead time as
insufficient to account for necessary changes. Many vehicle
manufacturers asked for a phase-in of the requirements.
Commenters split on the issue of removing certain vehicle
exemptions in FMVSS No. 225, such as the exclusion of convertible
vehicles from the requirement to provide tether anchorages (S5(a)), or
vehicles described in S5(e) of the standard from having any CRAS. A
vehicle manufacturers' association and vehicle manufacturers responding
to the issue were generally opposed to removing the exemptions.
Consumer advocates and research organizations strongly supported
removing the exemptions.
Many consumer advocates and research groups supported the NPRM but
contended the proposal should go further to improve the ease-of-use of
the anchorage systems. Consumer advocates and individuals described
numerous problems seen in the field that they believed should be
addressed. Overall, child restraint manufacturers and private
individuals supported the proposal.
Many commenters responded to NHTSA's questions posed in Section X
of the NPRM (80 FR 3764). Included in this section were questions about
whether there were safety concerns about using a ``simulated'' CRAS in
the rear center seating position.\33\ Most commenters concurred they
did not see safety issues raised using simulated CRASs in rear center
seating positions, provided the child restraint and vehicle
manufacturer at issue supported such use. NHTSA also asked whether its
education materials should recommend that tethers should be used for
all children regardless of the child's weight in the child restraint,
based on data indicating inherent benefits stemming from the use of a
tether.\34\ Most commenters on the issue supported the agency's
recommendation that tethers should be used by all children regardless
of weight, but one commenter (the Alliance) was opposed due to the
current strength requirements in FMVSS No. 225, which limit the forces
a tether anchorage can hold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ A ``simulated'' child restraint anchorage system consists
of the inboard lower anchorages of the CRAS in the two outboard
seating positions and the tether anchorage in the center seat. NHTSA
explained in the NPRM preamble that available data indicate that
simulated CRASs appear crash-worthy and acceptable. Given these
data, the agency sought comment on whether NHTSA should encourage or
require CRS and vehicle manufacturers to include, in instruction
manuals, statements that endorse the use of simulated CRASs in the
rear center seating position to consumers who wish to place a CRS in
that center position.
\34\ That is, even if the tether or anchorage broke in a severe
crash, the tethering would have attenuated some of the crash forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters provided input on issues that were outside of the
scope of the rulemaking. NHTSA may consider these ideas for possible
future updates to FMVSS No. 213 and/or No. 225, but generally will not
further address comments outside the scope of the rulemaking in this
document.
V. Improving the Ease of Using Lower Anchorages
a. Attaching to the Lower Anchorages
The NPRM proposed ease-of-use requirements to ensure that vehicle
manufacturers produce lower anchorages that: (a) have sufficient
clearance around each lower anchorage for consumers to maneuver the CRS
connector to attach to the lower anchorage (``clearance angle'' of 54
degrees or more); (b) are located such that the CRS connector can be
attached to the bar without applying excessive force (``attachment
force'' 178 N (40 pounds (lbf)) or less); and, (c) are not too deep
within the seat bight so they are easily accessible (``anchorage
depth'' twenty millimeters (mm) or less from the outer surface of the
seat bight).
General Comments
Commenters varied in their views about the proposed clearance
angle, attachment force and anchorage depth requirements. Consumer
advocates expressed general support for the proposed lower anchorage
usability requirements. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates) stated that the strengthening of FMVSS No. 225 through the
proposed revisions will likely result in more children being properly
restrained. Advocates concurred with the agency's view that improvement
in ease-of-use of the CRASs will increase use of CRSs and proper child
restraint system installation, which will in turn improve child safety.
Consumers Union supported the NPRM because, in their opinion, CRASs
provide an easier and more secure installation than seat belts.
IIHS strongly supported the NPRM, stating that IIHS confirmed
UMTRI's findings in the real world using data from Safe Kids' car seat
checkpoints from records of more than 14,000 child restraint
installations. IIHS found that anchor depths less than 4 cm, clearance
angles greater than 54 degrees, and attachment forces less than 178 N
(40 lbf) were associated not only with correct use, but also with use
of the anchorage system. While the commenter suggested the attachment
force tool could be improved, IIHS supported incorporating the proposed
measures into FMVSS No. 225. IIHS stated the proposed thresholds are
supported by real-world and laboratory data.
In contrast, many vehicle manufacturers expressed concerns about
the proposed requirements for lower anchorages. They expressed concern
about the extent of changes needed to meet some of the requirements and
the difficulties in consistently meeting requirements involving
measurements on soft materials like foam and cushions. The Alliance
supported the goal of establishing ease-of-use measurements for the
lower anchorages but did not agree with the proposed requirements and
test methods. The Alliance commented that only an anchorage depth
requirement is needed. It stated that the LATCH Usability study showed
the measurement of attachment force and clearance angle serve as
surrogates for anchorage accessibility. The commenter stated vehicles
with anchorages deeper in the seat bight generally had a smaller
clearance angle and higher attachment force in the study and that more
visible anchorages had larger clearance angles and lower attachment
forces, making the child restraint attachment step easier to
accomplish.
The Alliance stated that, since the proposed requirements for
anchorage location (anchorage depth) will expose the lower anchorages
in the vehicle, it can be expected that the attachment forces will be
lowered and the clearance angles will increase by design, making the
attachment force measurement and clearance angle measurement
unnecessary. Similarly, Fiat Chrysler
[[Page 1295]]
Automobiles U.S. (FCA) \35\ stated that clearance angle, force, and
anchorage depth are mutually inclusive and supported the Alliance's
position that relocating anchorages further forward in the vehicle will
generate similar results to the proposed requirements. FCA recommended
removing the attachment force and clearance angle criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ FCA changed its name in 2020 to Stellantis. This preamble
refers to the commenter by its name on the comment, FCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Specific to the Tools
The NPRM proposed to assess clearance angle, attachment force, and
anchorage depth using a set of specialized tools based on the tools
used in the UMTRI study. Prior to the NPRM, NHTSA evaluated the
proposed procedures and tools in 10 vehicles, model years (MY) 2005-
2013, and concluded that the procedures appear objective and
repeatable.\36\ Notwithstanding the agency's data, several vehicle
manufacturers raised concerns about the usability of the proposed test
tools and questioned the repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) of
test tools measurements and recommended more refinement of the tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ NHTSA Technical Report, ``Evaluation of LATCH Usability
Procedure,'' Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearance Angle Tool (CAT)
Clearance angle relates to the open space around a lower anchorage,
free from interfering seat components. Interfering components can make
it difficult to maneuver and attach a CRS lower anchorage connector. A
clearance angle requirement facilitates easier attachment of a CRS
lower anchorage connector by ensuring surrounding components do not
impede access to the anchorage.
NHTSA proposed a clearance angle measurement tool, illustrated in
figure 1 in the NPRM, for this final rule. That clearance angle tool
(CAT) includes a load cell with a handle to measure the applied
vertical force on the tool and a potentiometer to measure the angle
achieved with respect to the horizontal plane by the tool during the
force application. In the proposed test procedure, the CAT is attached
to a lower anchorage. A vertical force of 67 N (15 lbf) is applied to
the tool. The angle the tool measures (with respect to the horizontal)
when that force is applied is the ``clearance angle.'' The NPRM
proposed to adopt a clearance angle requirement of not less than 54
degrees, as supported by the findings of the LATCH Usability study.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.026
Some of the Alliance members commented on their experience with the
SAE Prototype and UMTRI clearance angle test devices. The members
stated they found those devices difficult to use and not sufficiently
repeatable. GM and FCA commented that oscillations caused by the free-
hanging weight attached to the rotary potentiometer resulted in non-
repeatable measurements. GM recommended replacing the rotary
potentiometers on the CAT with a digital inclinometer connected to a
data acquisition system. FCA commented that without real-time readout
of the vertical force applied, the operator will always overshoot/
undershoot the specified vertical load. Similarly, GM recommended
adding a means of indicating the force to the operator during the
measurement process so that the operator is notified when 67 N (15 lbf)
is achieved. GM and the Alliance recommended a small diameter
cylindrical style load cell with a lower range of measurement. GM also
stated that the multiple pivot points between the handle and the load
cell and between the load cell and the main body should be reduced to a
single pivot at attachment to the main body.
GM stated that, in some cases, it is difficult to apply the
vertical force due to interference with the seatback. FCA commented
that an operator will have difficulty maintaining 67 N (15 lbf) of
vertical force even if there was a real time display of the vertical
force. GM recommended that the handle pivot point to the main body on
the tool be moved farther from the connection to the lower anchorage to
allow more
[[Page 1296]]
clearance between the load cell and the seatback. GM indicated that
eliminating this interference should improve the repeatability of the
process. GM added that the equivalent moment can be applied by
specifying a lower force along with the increased moment arm.
Attachment Force Tool (AFT)
Vehicle manufacturers raised concerns that the attachment force
tool did not provide repeatable or reproducible results. Ford suggested
that NHTSA include in FMVSS No. 225 language that would permit an
average of several trials (i.e., five trials of each anchorage) as
criteria for compliance. Ford and the Alliance stated that the
repeatability of this test is very dependent on operator skill and
experience and not adequately repeatable and reproducible when used by
different operators in different labs.
The Alliance explained that many vehicle models feature lower
anchorage designs that include either a cover or a slit in the seat
cushion that allows access to the anchorage bar. Assuming that these
types of design are not prohibited by the new proposed maximum
attachment force requirement for lower anchorages, the Alliance
recommended that the test be rerun if the test device becomes caught in
the slit or cover.
GM commented that the AFT does not provide real-time feedback,
making it difficult to ensure the operator performs the insertion force
measurement at a consistent angle with the 0-45-degree range specified.
GM noted that this would be particularly important if the trim
interferes with insertion of the tool. GM added that the operators
found the AFT angle difficult to control with the short T-handle (see
figure 2) while trying not to touch the tool beyond the load cell. GM
found that a digital inclinometer was helpful in observing the angle
and improved its confidence in the force data being collected. GM
recommended that the rotary potentiometer be replaced with a digital
inclinometer including a real-time readout for the operator and a
signal output for data acquisition. GM also suggested that the T-handle
be replaced with a longer axial handle to improve control of the
insertion angle and to avoid touching the tool along the load path.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.027
GM commented that the AFT does not indicate to the operator that
the switch used to detect full engagement of the tool on the anchorage
bar has been activated. GM explained that this lack of an indication
could result in a ``no switch closure'' event, and that the peak
attachment force prior to bottoming out cannot be determined if this
happened. GM added that if the AFT was not sufficiently perpendicular
to the anchorage bar, it would be possible to mechanically bottom out
the tool without closing the switch and that the perpendicular
requirement is dependent on the distance the slide pin must travel
before activating the switch. Additionally, GM stated that, depending
on the lower anchorage style in the vehicle, particularly for non-
visible anchorage bars, it can be difficult to determine
perpendicularity.
GM requested that the current tool be revised to allow a larger
tolerance to the range of perpendicularity, as a child restraint
anchorage connector may be attached at a larger range of angles than
the current tool design. GM suggested that this goal may be
accomplished by lengthening the slide pin or increasing the thickness
of the slide tab and that either solution will allow the slide tab to
close the switch earlier during anchorage bar engagement and increase
the perpendicularity tolerance. GM also recommended that an LED be
included on the tool to indicate to the operator when the switch is
closed.
GM also commented on the oscillations caused by the free-hanging
weight attached to the rotary potentiometer. GM noted that, depending
on the timing, the angle value at the time of switch closure could be
very close to a maximum or a minimum of an oscillation. GM explained
that in the example in figure 2 of its comment submission,\37\ the
oscillation is within the 0 to 45 degree force application range
specified in the proposal; however, these oscillations can be
eliminated by the utilization of a digital inclinometer. GM recommended
that the rotary potentiometer be replaced with a digital inclinometer
that includes a real-time readout for the operator and a signal output
for data acquisition. GM added that the rotational freedom of motion of
the AFT makes it difficult to control without touching the tool beyond
the load cell and potentially altering the force measurement. GM also
noted that the wiring to the load cell is susceptible to damage due to
its location relative to
[[Page 1297]]
the handle used to apply the force.\38\ GM recommended that an in-line
load cell with a threaded attachment between the main body and the
handle be adopted to alleviate these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ NHTSA-2014-0123-0056.
\38\ Figure 3 of GM's comments can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-
2014-0123-0056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, FCA commented that the potentiometer attached to the
weight that is allowed to swing freely to capture the angle causes
oscillations in the recorded angle, that at the point in time when the
switch is triggered the attachment force increases drastically, the
operator's rate of force application can influence the results, and
that the AFT can interact with the seat cushion.
Global requested that lateral and vertical motions with the
proposed tool be allowed prior to the application of the insertion
force perpendicular to the center of the anchorage bar to represent
typical actions taken by the consumer when attaching a child restraint
to the lower anchorages.
IIHS stated that the agency's proposed changes to the AFT should
improve repeatability of measurements over the tools used in the
original IIHS/UMTRI research. IIHS provided the following two concerns:
1. IIHS and UMTRI stated the recorded attachment force should be
the peak force from initial engagement with the seat cushion until full
engagement of the tool on the lower anchorage. IIHS added that for some
vehicles the peak force occurs as the tool is inserted between the
cushions. IIHS stated such a peak force will not be captured when
following the proposed protocol because the AFT records the force only
at full engagement with the lower anchorage.
2. IIHS explained that the proposed changes to the tool do not
address the off-axis vertical force required to align the tool with the
lower anchorage.\39\ IIHS noted this vertical force was not measured in
NHTSA's evaluation. Instead, the force was assigned subjective ratings,
making it difficult to standardize the measurement procedure and
limiting R&R. IIHS noted it had developed a lower anchorage attachment
force tool \40\ that eliminates the need for additional vertical or
lateral forces. This IIHS-developed tool replaces the slide pin, slide
tab, and spring assembly with a square cross-section guide rod with a
convex notch that prepositions the tool, aligning it with the lower
anchorage bar before the force is applied. IIHS added that the new tool
replaces the original depth gauge, as the depth scale is inscribed on
the IIHS revised tool.\41\ IIHS encouraged NHTSA to make further
refinements to the attachment force tool to remove the need for off-
axis forces to properly align with the lower anchorage bar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Evaluation of LATCH Usability Procedure, Louden et al.,
2014.
\40\ IIHS provided drawings of the new tool and a more detailed
description of its use in its comments. See www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0020.
\41\ Cicchino JB, Jermakian JS. ``Vehicle characteristics
associated with LATCH use and correct use in real-world child
restraint installations.'' Journal of Safety Research. 2015 June.
www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai commented that the proposed AFT did not represent the
hardware currently used in CRSs in the market. Hyundai stated it
observed 100 percent of forward facing/convertible child seats sold at
a retail store it visited are either the Safeguard clip system \42\ or
a simple hook. Hyundai noted the AFT has an exaggerated flat front face
that requires more effort to insert into the seat bight for attachment.
Hyundai also noted the attachment slot of the tool is not tapered,
potentially leading to false readings if not properly engaged with the
attachment bar. Hyundai performed a comparison evaluation with the
proposed tool and found that the force was reduced by 20-50 percent
when using a Safeguard attachment clip common in the industry. Hyundai
pointed out that CRS manufacturers have already found a solution for
increasing ease-of-use in attaching hardware by only using the
Safeguard clip system connectors or a simple hook system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Safeguard is a brand that produces push-on-type lower
anchorage connectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage Depth Tool (ADT)
Anchorage depth refers to how deeply the lower anchorages are
embedded in the vehicle seat (usually in the seat bight or seatback).
The LATCH Usability study found that an anchorage depth of less than 20
mm within the seat bight is associated with a significantly higher rate
of correct lower anchorage use than anchorage depths of 20 mm or more.
NHTSA proposed a requirement for each lower anchorage to have an
anchorage depth of less than 20 mm, as measured by a specially designed
lower anchorage depth tool (ADT). The proposed ADT incorporates a hook-
type CRS connector (see figure 3). The 20 mm distance is marked on the
tool. In a compliance test, the tool would be attached to a lower
anchorage. The NPRM proposed that the 20 mm mark would have to be
visible from a vertical longitudinal plane passing through the center
of the bar, along a line making an upward 30-degree angle with a
horizontal plane, without the technician manipulating the seat cushions
in any way.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.028
The Alliance explained that the current requirements for FMVSS No.
225 are based on the visibility of the lower anchorages around the soft
trim and that the current FMVSS No. 225 does not place the vehicle
development process at risk as the standard gives manufacturers the
option to certify the vehicles by adding seat cover markings if the
lower anchorage is not visible. The Alliance stated anchorage depth in
the current regulation is defined relative to a reference point, ``Z''
on the child restraint fixture (CRF), and the rearward-most location is
defined in
[[Page 1298]]
Section 9.2.2(a) as: ``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 seatback by the rearward application of a horizontal force of 100 N
at point A on the CRF'' and that section S9.2.2(b) requires that the
anchorage be located ``Not less than 120 mm behind the vehicle seating
reference point.'' The Alliance explained that these two requirements
``in essence'' create the fore/aft ``zone'' for anchorage placement
with respect to the seating reference point and the positioned CRF. The
Alliance stated that during initial design of a vehicle, a virtual CRF
is placed on the nominal seat to define the maximum anchorage depth and
that this process locates the anchorages relative to defined hard
points and ensures that the final anchorage location will be compliant
to the regulation. The Alliance added that the application force of 100
N allows for the variation of foam and trim in a production vehicle.
Difficulty Meeting the Current Lower Anchorage Location Requirements
and the Proposed Anchorage Depth Requirement
The Alliance explained that with certain current vehicle and seat
designs, it is challenging to balance the maximum distance that the
anchorage can be from the Z-point on the CRF with the 120-mm minimum
distance the anchorage can be from the seating reference point (SgRP).
The Alliance added that it may be difficult to meet the proposed lower
anchorage depth requirements without violating the minimum distance the
anchorage can be located from SgRP (S9.2.2(b)). The Alliance questioned
the agency's conclusion that because the proposed anchorage depth
specifies an anchorage must be less than 20 mm deep into the seat
bight, lower anchorages will be able to meet the proposed requirement
without conflicting with S9.2.2(b). The Alliance disagreed with NHTSA's
conclusion, stating that (1) it does not consider the trim surface
variation described above, and (2) it assumes all lower anchorages are
located at the bight line, which is often not the case in vehicles with
high bight lines.
Difficulties in the Design Process for Ensuring Compliance With the
Proposed Lower Anchorage Requirements
The Alliance and FCA explained that the seat development process
begins with virtual modeling tools used to establish the Vehicle
Occupant Package (VOP) ``hard points,'' such as h-point, torso angle,
seat belt anchorage locations, seat structure dimensions, etc., as well
as the location of the lower anchorages. The Alliance and FCA added
that these VOP ``hard points'' are established to ensure the final
vehicle package will conform to all regulatory requirements while
supporting customer-driven objectives such as comfort, seat adjustment
forces, etc., for the seat design.
The Alliance and FCA added that the production seat contour cannot
be developed exclusively in the virtual design space and that design
models cannot adequately capture the complex interaction of foam and
trim tension, folding actuation clearance, and comfort requirements.
The Alliance noted that in the typical vehicle development process, the
seat trim outline (STO) begins in the CAD design space and then matures
through several phases of physical properties to allow incremental
evaluation of the VOP dimensions, occupant comfort, seat folding/
adjusting efforts, and overall appearance.
FCA explained that early seat development properties are built
using skived foam (a foam cut from a solid block of foam) and that
while these properties allow early evaluations of customer driven
factors such as seat comfort, they are only directionally
representative of final seat designs. FCA added that this is because
skived foam does not have the same force/displacement properties of
production cast foam and that production foam is produced using a
molding process that results in a ``skin'' at the surface of the foam
and a variable density and stiffness that cannot be mimicked by skived
foam (which has a constant density and stiffness). As a result, FCA
explained it cannot accurately predict child seat installation efforts
with the accuracy and confidence necessary for regulatory compliance.
The Alliance and FCA stated that the virtual seat design process
lacks the material properties necessary to predict lower anchorage
attachment force with the accuracy necessary to guarantee regulatory
compliance and that vehicle manufacturers will run the risk of late
changes to the product design that will significantly increase design,
manufacturing, and testing costs.
The Alliance and FCA recommended that the agency investigate
alternatives to those in the proposal, including dimensional reference
from a CRF, to determine a more objective method of measurement that
will accomplish the associated ``ease-of-use'' goal. FCA stated this
approach will accomplish the goal of relocating anchorages closer to
the seat bight, while still using proven design and compliance
measurement processes.
FCA stated that while it supports the overall goal of increasing
the ``ease-of-use'' of child restraint systems for caregivers, the
proposed requirements and test methods are too dependent on ``soft''
seat features like trim and foam. Similarly, the Alliance stated that
the proposed method is overly sensitive to foam stiffness and the
production variability between trim surface and the lower anchorages
could exceed 20 mm.
Ford stated it does not agree that seat design changes needed to
meet the proposed lower anchorage requirements can be accomplished
through steps such as cutting larger open areas in the seat foam
surrounding the lower anchorage bars, as stated by NHTSA in the NPRM.
Ford explained that the manufacturing process for seat cushions doesn't
typically involve secondary cutting operations. Ford also stated that
design changes to meet the proposed requirements would require
modifications to foam tooling. Ford explained these modifications could
require inserts and separate compartments in the tool to locally revise
the density of the foam and that any local voids in the cushion or
seatback to provide clearance to anchorages would require a more labor-
intensive process to sew trim covers to achieve acceptable appearance
and craftsmanship. Ford also explained that since the system
characteristics are evaluated after the seat is built, the design
process will be iterative, and won't be fully understood until it
fabricates the assessment tools and conducts evaluations of existing
vehicles.
Ford stated that, at minimum, the proposed requirements would
require seat cushion, back foam, and trim changes to locally modify the
foam density in the area of the lower anchorages. Ford added that lower
anchorage bars in some vehicles may require modification so that the
anchorages extend further forward in-vehicle.
Subjectivity Reading Angle and ADT Angle During Measurement
FCA expressed concerns that the angle of the line of sight for
measuring the lower anchorage depth using the ADT can vary due to the
parallax effect and therefore the lower anchorage depth measurement is
user-dependent and lacks objectivity. Similarly, GM explained that the
ADT measurements are subjective in some cases, such as when overlapping
trim opening is
[[Page 1299]]
present.\43\ GM requested clarification of the procedure regarding trim
covering or surrounding trim being displaced by the tool and the angle
of the tool during determination of the depth measurement. The Alliance
stated there were differences between the UMTRI LATCH Usability study
and the NPRM ADT measurements. The Alliance noted that the UMTRI Study
specified no tension on the hook, which implies that the ADT will lie
on the seat cushion, while the Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC)
study was kept approximately parallel with the seat cushion. The
Alliance added that S9.2.2(a) did not specify any tension to be
maintained in the ADT, so it is implied that the tool would lie on the
seat cushion when making the measurement. GM recommended that the test
procedure require that the tool be kept parallel to seat cushion when
reading the depth measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Shown on figure 8 of GM's submitted comments in Docket No.
NHTSA-2014-0123-0056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatability
FCA expressed concern regarding the tool's R&R during two different
ex parte meetings with NHTSA.\44\ During the September 21, 2015,
meeting, FCA presented two R&R studies showing the measurements with
the force and clearance angle tools had poor repeatability and
reproducibility. FCA recommended NHTSA conduct its own R&R study and
harmonize tools with IIHS if possible. GM also presented results from a
limited study of gauge repeatability with the proposed tools during a
November 23, 2015, ex parte meeting.\45\ GM explained that the gauge
repeatability study showed that further refinement of the proposed
tools was required to meet industry guidelines of repeatability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Ex parte memo for September 22, 2015, meeting with FCA. See
docket NHTSA-2014-0123-0052 and NHTSA-2014-0123-0053 in
www.regulations.gov.
\45\ Ex parte memo for November 23, 2015, meeting with GM. See
docket NHTSA-2014-0123-0056 in www.regulations.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Post-NPRM Research
After careful consideration of comments received in response to the
NPRM, NHTSA carried out a study to assess whether and how the tools
proposed in the NPRM could be modified. Specifically, some commenters
expressed concerns about the R&R of the tools and the subjectivity of
some measurements. Some commenters suggested improvements to the tools
and the tools' instrumentation to have more repeatable measurements and
better usability. Finally, some commenters also stated that NHTSA
should harmonize or adopt the tools and procedures being used by the
IIHS for consistency of evaluation on the lower anchorage
attachments.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ In June 2015, IIHS released its rating protocol along with
tools to assess the usability of the lower anchorages with similar
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the course of the study, NHTSA reviewed IIHS's rating
protocols and tools to consider any beneficial features provided by the
tools. NHTSA proceeded to implement tool improvements to address the
commenters concerns by updating the AFT and its instrumentation via an
iterative process.\47\ Specifically, NHTSA added features to the AFT,
similar to the IIHS rating protocol,\48\ by including a guide rod to
guide the tool towards the anchorage. Other modifications included
updating instrumentation to digitally record the angle during the test,
adding an actuator allowing for a steady rate of force application, and
adding a support leg to stabilize the tool and maintain the approach
angle during the attachment force measurements. These modifications
were expected to produce more consistent results by resolving the issue
of aligning the tool with hidden anchorages, reducing the
inconsistencies from off-axis loading and having more consistent
readings with new instrumentation. The repeatability study results are
discussed in greater detail in the GR&R Study portion of this section
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Detailed documentation of these changes can be found in the
technical report: Louden, A.E., Wietholter, K., & Pruitt, C.E.
(2022, May). Evaluation of LATCH Usability Tools Update (Report No.
DOT HS 813 229). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
This report will be available in this final rule's docket.
\48\ IIHS developed a tool that included a depth measurement
gauge within the AFT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the updated CAT, NHTSA added a pulley bridge (with adjustable
feet to make it level) to apply a 67 N (15 lbf) force vertically to
remove the difficulty of applying the constant load manually. NHTSA
also added digital instrumentation that allowed time-history data to be
recorded. Further, NHTSA replaced the rotary potentiometer several
commenters expressed concerns about with an analog position sensor to
collect the angle data more reliably. To improve durability, the jaw of
the tool was also reinforced with steel plates and the latch tooth was
updated to be refabricated completely out of steel.
For the depth measurement \49\ NHTSA modified the ADT through the
addition of a sliding view bar to create a more consistent view angle
and an additional depth gauge measurement device to provide a numerical
value for the depth, rather than using color markings for the 20 mm
depth reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ NHTSA evaluated the IIHS depth tool method that is embedded
in IIHS's attachment force tool; however, results showed that the
readings using this tool were different from the proposed tool, so
NHTSA did not continue to use IIHS's tool for depth measurements.
Details can be found in the report: Louden, A.E., Wietholter, K., &
Pruitt, C.E. (2022, May). Evaluation of LATCH Usability Tools Update
(Report No. DOT HS 813 229). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. This report will be available in this final rule's
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GR&R Study
Following its initial study and tool modifications, NHTSA
considered comments expressing concerns over tool repeatability and
reproducibility. In response to comments that NHTSA should use the
industry's standard gauge repeatability and reproducibility (GR&R)
methodology to evaluate the measurement tools' R&R, NHTSA conducted a
GR&R study with the improved tools to determine if the updated tools
provided repeatable and reproducible measurements.
NHTSA contracted UMTRI to evaluate the NHTSA-improved tools. The
evaluation sought to identify any further improvements that could be
made to the tools and to do a GR&R assessment study with the modified
tools. NHTSA also required UMTRI to perform a statistical analysis to
quantify the usability of the toolsets according to industry standards
to address manufacturers' NPRM comments.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Klinich, K.D., Manary, M.A., Boyle, K., Malik, L., Bowman,
P., Flannagan, C.A., ``Evaluation of Repeatability and
Reproducibility of Proposed Tools to Assess Lower Anchor Usability''
UMTRI-2018-4, July 2018. This report will be docketed with the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI conducted the GR&R study in two phases to evaluate the
effects of different operators, tools, and vehicles. Each phase used 10
different vehicle models for the modified tool evaluations. UMTRI
picked the first phase's vehicles based on the 214 vehicles used for
the IIHS CRAS study. Phase one vehicles were selected to allow
evaluation of the tools and procedures across a range of different seat
styles found in the MY 2016 vehicle fleet.\51\ For phase two, UMTRI
again based vehicle selection on the IIHS CRAS study vehicles, with an
emphasis on finding vehicles with lower anchorages in the second-row
center (2C) seating position or vehicles with a third row of seats.
UMTRI also looked at the data from phase one to identify
[[Page 1300]]
measures of interest for phase two, such as pick-up trucks and coupe
vehicles. In selecting vehicles for the study, UMTRI tried to maximize
variation among manufacturers, while also considering the availability
to rent such vehicles for testing. UMTRI's GR&R study \52\ found that
for the clearance angle measurement 92 percent of variance is
attributable to the vehicle (part) variability and only 8.4 percent is
attributable to system variability (combined variability of the tools,
operator, and repeat measurements). For the depth measurement UMTRI
found that 93 percent of the variance is attributed to the vehicle
(part) variability and only 7 percent to the system variability. For
the force measurement, UMTRI found that 67 percent of the variance
comes from vehicle (part) variation and 33 percent comes from the
system variability. According to the Measurement Systems Analysis
Reference Manual (MSA),\53\ a system variation in the measurement of 10
percent or less is considered acceptable R&R of the measurement, while
a system measurement variability of 30 percent or more is considered
unacceptable. The results of UMTRI's GR&R Study demonstrate that the
anchorage depth and clearance angle measurements obtained via the
updated ADT and CAT have good R&R, but that the anchorage force
measurement with the AFT V2 does not. Further details of the GR&R
analysis are available in the UMTRI GR&R study report.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ This analysis is available in the technical report:
Klinich, K.D., Manary, M.A., Boyle, K., Malik, L., Bowman, P.,
Flannagan, C.A., ``Evaluation of Repeatability and Reproducibility
of Proposed Tools to Assess Lower Anchor Usability'' UMTRI-2018-4,
July 2018.
\52\ For details on the vehicles and measurements see Klinich et
al (2018).
\53\ This reference manual, developed by the vehicle industry,
contains guidelines for assessing the quality of a measurement
system. Down, M., Czubak, F., Gruska, G., Stahley, S., Benham, D.
(2010) Measurement Systems Analysis Reference Manual, Fourth
Edition. Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors
Corporation. http://www.rubymetrology.com/add_help_doc/MSA_Reference_Manual_4th_Edition.pdf.
\54\ Klinich et.al. 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Summary of Decision on Assessing Usability of Lower Anchorages
This final rule adopts the updated lower anchorage depth and
clearance angle tools and requirements, but not the attachment force
requirement. These adopted requirements will ensure that lower
anchorages on vehicles subject to this rule have sufficient clearance
around each lower anchorage, and that the lower anchorages are within
25 mm of the outer surface of the seat bight (anchorage depth).\55\
Lower anchorages meeting these requirements will be easier to use, as
shown by the UMTRI and IIHS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Anchorage Depth Tool Decision below (section V.d.2),
where NHTSA explains why the anchorage depth threshold changed from
20 mm to 25 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LATCH Usability study found these ease-of-use specifications
correlate with correct child restraint installations. National Child
Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS) \56\ data showed that a loose CRS
installation comprises one of the five most significant mistakes
consumers make when installing child restraints. Loose CRS
installations can result in greater movement of a child and their CRS
during a crash, increasing the risk for injury and higher injury
severity due to possible contact with vehicle interior structures.
CRASs designed to be easier to properly use will increase correct
(tight) CRS installations, making children safer in a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Greenwell, N.K. (2015, May). Results of the national child
restraint use special study. (Report No. DOT HS 812 142).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM proposed clearance angle, attachment force, and anchorage
depth specifications. This final rule is only adopting requirements and
measurement tools for the clearance angle and anchorage depth. The
agency evaluated a series of changes to the attachment force tool to
improve its R&R. However, the GR&R \57\ study found that measurements
from the attachment force tool lacked acceptable level of R&R needed
for adopting into the standard.\58\ NHTSA does not believe further
improvements to the attachment force tool will be enough to achieve a
sufficient R&R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ GR&R is the process used to evaluate a gauging instrument's
accuracy by ensuring its measurements are repeatable and
reproducible. The process includes taking a series of measurements
to certify that the output is the same value as the input, and that
the same measurements are obtained under the same operating
conditions over a set duration. See https://asq.org/quality-resources/gage-repeatability.
\58\ Klinich, K., Manary, M.A., Boyle, K., Malik L.J., Bowman,
P., Flannagan, C.A.'' Evaluation of Repeatability and
Reproducibility of Proposed Tools to Assess Lower Anchor Usability''
July 2018. Report will be docketed with this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI's LATCH Usability study \59\ identified three vehicle
hardware characteristics serving as predictors for correct CRS use,
analyzing the predicting factors of force and depth separately and
together. Depth and attachment force when analyzed separately showed
each were highly significant predictors of correct lower anchors use.
But when these vehicle characteristics were analyzed together, force
became marginally significant while depth remained a highly significant
predictor. UMTRI concluded that while these results do not guarantee a
causal relationship between depth and correct installations, the
results do indicate that depth is a better predictor of correct
installations than force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Klinich et al., ``LATCH Usability in Vehicles,'' UMTRI-
2012-7, April 2012. Link: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/90856.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Alliance and FCA commented that only the anchorage depth
requirement was warranted, NHTSA disagrees. UMTRI's LATCH Usability in
Vehicles Study analyzed depth and clearance angle. Study results
concluded that separately they each were highly significant predictors
of correct use of lower anchors. When analyzed together, to the extent
there is unique variance attributable to depth and clearance
separately, depth and clearance angle both became marginally
significant. This indicates that both are equally predictive of correct
installation.
Because the study could not estimate the contribution of each
feature, NHTSA cannot accurately calculate the effect of not having the
attachment force as a requirement. The data does indicate that by
having clearance angle and depth requirements, correct CRS usage will
improve.
d. Detailed Agency Decisions Regarding the Tools and Performance
Criteria
1. Clearance Angle Tool and Minimum Allowable Clearance Angle
NHTSA understands that some vehicles will need redesign to meet
both requirements. But as presented in figure 9 of the 2015 NPRM,\60\
the depth requirement is feasible in many vehicles without making any
design changes to meet the S9.2.2(b) requirements. Following careful
consideration of comments received and further studies described above,
NHTSA has modified the NPRM's proposed clearance angle tool (CAT) to
address several concerns raised by commenters. The final design of the
CAT now includes a pulley bridge to apply a consistent vertical force
of 67 N (15 lb) to address commenters' concerns regarding the
difficulty in applying the force in the proposed CAT. Further, although
the proposed CAT had digital instrumentation allowing for the recording
of time-history data, based on comment feedback, NHTSA has implemented
new instrumentation to improve measurement repeatability, including an
analog position sensor and an Interface S-Type load cell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0123-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI's GR&R study found that the measurement variability of the
updated CAT \61\ system was less than 10 percent of the total
measurement variability, confirming that the updated CAT
[[Page 1301]]
measurements have sufficient R&R for regulatory purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Identified as CAT V2 in technical reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, this final rule incorporates the requirement of a
minimum of 54-degrees clearance angle in FMVSS No. 225 when applying a
67 N vertical load to the updated tool. Drawings of the final updated
CAT design have been incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 225.
NHTSA has placed a copy of the drawings in the docket for this final
rule.
While supportive of a clearance angle requirement, Advocates argued
that the proposed 54 degree minimum was too low. NHTSA selected the 54-
degree clearance angle based on a 50 percent correct CRS use in UMTRI's
LATCH Usability study. Only 2 of the 98 vehicles studied by UMTRI had a
clearance angle above 75 degrees, which calls into question the
feasibility of defining 75 degrees as a limit. The proposed values
provide an improvement on correct installations and are not overly
burdensome for manufacturers to meet. NHTSA also believes that vehicles
will be well above the 54 degree clearance angle, as the standard will
also require anchorages depths that typically result in higher
clearance angles. Fifty-four of the 98 vehicles in UMTRI's study had
clearance angles over 54 degrees (ranging 54-83 degrees), which will
improve correct installations beyond the 50 percent used to establish
the threshold.
In response to the Alliance's request for clarification on whether
the CAT measurements must be made independently or at both anchorages
concurrently, the CAT measurements are to be done independently at each
lower anchorage in the vehicle. Further, NHTSA does not agree with the
Alliance's suggestion that the weight of the tool needs to be
subtracted from the total force applied to arrive at the 67 N
requirements. With the tool modifications to the CAT, the 67 N will
provide a constant load, and subtracting the force due to the weight of
the tool would add unnecessary complexity to the system.
NHTSA acknowledges comments made by MGA \62\ on the proposed tools
and technical drawings published with the NPRM. Specifically, MGA
stated that ``the spring pockets are 0.146'' offset, which causes the
spring to fall out during compression.'' Based on this, MGA stated that
it did the following: (1.) moved the pivot to spring pocket distance as
follows: 4.970-2.500 = 2.470 (upper spring pocket); (2.) moved the
pivot to spring pocket distance as follows: 3.216-0.600 = 2.616 (lower
spring pocket); (3.) moved the upper spring pocket forward 0.125'' to
align the upper and lower spring pocket more closely, and prevent the
spring from falling out during compression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ For full comments and associated figures see
www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these changes, MGA pointed out that the load cell
presented in NHTSA's NPRM is not commercially available. As such, MGA
replaced the load cell with an Interface SSM-AJ-100 load cell. MGA
explained the hardware to attach the load cell to the handle and ball
and joint connection are Interface CLV-104 clevises. MGA also noted the
female rod end is McMaster part number 60645K32, while the male rod end
is unchanged. Finally, MGA redefined the clearance angle tool handle
measurements to fit the Interface clevis CLV-104 that is used with the
Interface SSM-AJ-100 load cell.
In response to these comments, NHTSA has updated the drawings as
follows: the dimension 4.97 inches in drawing DA609-001 (figure 9 in
MGA comments) is corrected to 5.15 inches to eliminate the offset this
dimension created with drawing DA609-003. However, NHTSA did not move
the upper spring pocket forward 0.125 inches as suggested by MGA
because the spring was modified to a conical spring (in Drawing DA609-
000), which prevents the spring from falling out during compression.
The upper spring pocket was thus left in the same location as proposed.
In response to comments on the load cell, NHTSA updated the drawings as
follows for this final rule: the proposed load cell is changed to the
S-Type load cell suggested by MGA, which is commercially available.
However, suggested changes to the handle and attachments to the handle
will not be implemented, as they are now moot as this part was removed
and replaced with a pulley system.
Finally, NHTSA acknowledges MGA's request for clarification on
certain inconsistent dimensions in two drawings, as seen in figures 17
and 18 of MGA's comments.\63\ In response to these comments, this final
rule updates the drawings as follows: the material in Drawing DA609-005
is changed from having a material PL 1'' x 1\3/16\'' x 1\7/8\'' to PL
1'' x 1\3/16\'' x 5'' to correct the inconsistent dimensions in the
drawing. Further, drawing DA609-006 is removed as the mount in this
drawing is no longer needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Anchorage Depth Tool and Maximum Allowable Anchorage Depth
NHTSA acknowledges that several commenters, including GM and FCA,
expressed concerns about the repeatability of the ADT tool and the
subjectivity of the viewing angle in determining whether the
measurement was 20 mm or less. After careful consideration this final
rule's updated ADT \64\ addresses concerns over viewing angle
subjectivity through the addition of a view bar and zero-strip that
translate the viewing angle into a physical measurement. In support of
this decision, UMTRI's GR&R study found that the ADT measurement
variability of the updated system was less than 10 percent of the total
measurement variability (specifically, 93 percent of the variance in
the depth measurements is attributed to vehicle variation and only 7
percent to the system variability), confirming that the updated ADT
measurements have sufficient R&R for regulatory purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Identified as ADT V4 in technical reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule is also increasing the NPRM's proposed 20 mm limit
to 25 mm. As noted earlier, since the study vehicles were selected
based on their different characteristics and not as a randomized
selection, the agency's analysis does not fully evaluate the
variability across vehicles. There could be some anchorage depth
measurement variability in some seat designs. Further, the GR&R study
by UMTRI considered depth measurements rounded to the nearest quarter
cm. In acknowledgment of these limitations in the GR&R analysis, NHTSA
is specifying that the anchorage depth be 25 mm or less, rather than
the 20 mm proposed in the NPRM. As such, measurement by the finalized
ADT will account for measurement and manufacturing variability.
Expanding the depth requirement to 25 mm will still result in improved
usability and a higher number of correct installations.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ UMTRI's LATCH Usability study (2012) was not conducted with
the precision tools such as the ADT included in this final rule. The
UMTRI Study tools had some ambiguities regarding a consistent
viewing angle to detect the change in color from the hook-type tool.
The additional 5 mm is in the realm of depth reading variability
from that study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA did not consider lowering the anchorage depth to less than 20
mm, which would be a more stringent threshold than that proposed in the
NPRM. In response to the Alliance's comment asking why a 4 cm anchorage
depth was not proposed, as that depth also showed correct installations
in UMTRI's LATCH Usability study, NHTSA points out that the UMTRI LATCH
Usability study found that study
[[Page 1302]]
volunteers correctly installed CRSs 50.7 percent of the time when using
anchorages with depths 2 to 4 cm,\66\ but that anchorage depths of 0 to
2 cm showed a more pronounced improvement to 85.9 percent correct CRS
installation. As a 35 percent increase in the number of correct CRSs
installed is a significant increase in the crash safety protections
provided to young children, the Agency declines to consider a 4 cm
anchorage depth for this final rule. In response to the Alliance's
suggestion to better define the tensioning and angle placement of the
ADT during the procedure, as the updated ADT is pulled taut so that the
anchorage bar engages the tool, a need to define the tension does not
exist, as the required tool is rigid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The UMTRI ``LATCH Usability'' study showed correct use of
85.9 percent, 50.7 percent and 43.1 percent for lower anchorage
depths of 0-2 cm, 2-4 cm and 4-6cm respectively. We expect lower
anchorages with depths between 2-4 cm that are closer to 2 cm would
have higher correct use and those closer to 4 cm would have lower
correct use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is rejecting a comment requesting the removal of the
prohibition in FMVSS No. 225 on stowable lower anchorage bars, as lower
anchorages should be readily available for use and no further steps
should be necessary (other than removing a lower anchorage specific
cover) to access and use them.
NHTSA agrees with GM's recommendation to position the ADT at an
angle parallel to the seat cushion to make measurements and has revised
the NPRM's proposed procedure to specify that the ADT will be
positioned at an angle parallel to the seat cushion. The test procedure
will indicate how to measure the seat cushion angle (using a 2 ft level
and an inclinometer) and how to position the ADT to reach this angle
(use of shims if necessary). In response to expressed concerns over the
measuring tool potentially displacing the trim covering or surrounding
trim being displaced by the tool, NHTSA notes that this final rule's
anchorage depth measurement procedure allows for clear depth
measurement via the taping away from anchorages (with masking tape)
such things as coverings, flaps, or other vehicle parts. In relation to
concern over trim coverings, including slits where the fabric or
leather is too stiff to be taped, there should be minimal manipulation
of the slit to introduce and hook the ADT in the anchorage and pull it
back. The ADT may push away some of the fabric or leather when it is
engaged to the lower anchorage. The depth will be measured where the
viewing strip comes in contact with the vehicle seat (which includes
the fabric or leather). Since the vehicle is prepared before the test
measurement by marking the vehicle seat with a line perpendicular to
the anchorage center, the tool can be easily directed to the anchorage.
In response to commenters that suggested developing a depth measure
based on a hard point given the difficulty in designing and controlling
the variance of the foam/trim elements during the design process, NHTSA
respectfully disagrees with this suggestion. The LATCH Usability study
\67\ found that anchorages positioned less than 20 mm from the seat
bight result in more correct installations. Further, one noted issue
consumers experience when installing CRSs with deep anchorages is
difficulties with the foam of the seat and/or the fabric/leather
surrounding the anchorage. As anchor depth measurement from a hard
point measurement does not take the interactions of the seat foam and
fabric into consideration, a depth measurement based on a seat hard
point would not necessarily improve ease-of-use and correct
installations. NHTSA does acknowledge that there may be greater
variability in foam and different trim levels than those considered in
the UMTRI GR&R analysis. To account for any potential measurement or
manufacturing variability this final rule specifies an anchorage depth
of no more than 25 mm, as opposed to the proposed 20 mm, to account for
measurement and manufacturing variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Klinich et al., ``LATCH Usability in Vehicles,'' UMTRI-
2012-7, April 2012. Link: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/90856.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters expressed concerns over the costs of required
tooling changes to meet the depth requirements of this final rule.
NHTSA acknowledges that tooling changes for existing production
vehicles can be very costly and are better accommodated during the
early design stage of a vehicle's renewal cycle to minimize any
potential costs. Accordingly, the agency finds good cause to provide
more lead time and a phase-in for manufacturers to account for
different trims and the possibility of tooling changes to meet the
depth requirements required by this final rule. As such, this final
rule is providing a longer lead time than that proposed in the NPRM,
with a phase-in schedule (see Lead Time Section). NHTSA is permitting
optional early compliance with this final rule's requirements.
3. Attachment Force Tool
Following careful consideration of comments received and additional
testing, NHTSA has decided not to adopt the NPRM's proposed attachment
force requirements into FMVSS No. 225. Following publication of the
NPRM, NHTSA attempted to improve the R&R of the AFT. However, UMTRI's
GR&R study, which used the improved AFT, found that 67 percent of depth
measurement variance came from vehicle (part) variation and 33 percent
came from system variability (variability attributed to the tools,
operators, and repeated measurements). The Measurement Systems Analysis
Reference Manual (MSA) \68\ document, followed by the vehicle industry,
indicates that when evaluating a test procedure, it is acceptable if
the system's percentage variation is less than 10%. This means the
improved AFT failed to reach an acceptable R&R for adoption into the
standard. NHTSA does not believe further improvements to the AFT would
achieve sufficient repeatable and reproducible measurements for
regulatory purposes. Further, although Ford suggested using the average
of several measurement trials using the AFT as the criteria for
anchorage attachment force, NHTSA found R&R was not sufficiently
improved by considering the average of five measurement trials for some
vehicle seats. As NHTSA has determined the adoption of the AFT into
FMVSS No. 225 is not feasible, this final rule does not address
additional comments received suggesting improvements to the tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Down M, Czubak F, Gruska G, Stahley S, Benham D. (2010)
Measurement Systems Analysis Reference Manual, Fourth Edition.
Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation.
Link: http://www.rubymetrology.com/add_help_doc/MSA_Reference_Manual_4th_Edition.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the decision not to include an attachment force criterion
into FMVSS No. 225, the remaining requirements of this final rule will
improve the ease-of-use of the lower anchorages. UMTRI's study \69\
identified the characteristics of attachment force, clearance angle,
and attachment depth as predictors for correct CRS use, and then
modeled the predicting factors of force and depth both separately and
together. Analyzed separately, depth and attachment force were highly
significant predictors of the correct use of lower anchors. Analyzed
together, depth remained a highly significant predictor, while
attachment force was only a marginally significant
[[Page 1303]]
predictor. As such, UMTRI concluded that although these results do not
guarantee a causal relationship between depth and correct
installations, they do indicate that depth is a somewhat better
predictor of correct CRS installations than attachment force. This
final rule's depth requirements ensure that the lower anchorages will
be placed in a more forward position, making them more likely to avoid
foam material and structures and potentially resulting in decreased
force needed to attach the lower anchorage. Further, this final rule's
required clearance angle will ensure no material or structure will
prevent placement of the lower anchorage attachment, which may also
result in less required force to attach the lower anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Klinich et al., ``LATCH Usability in Vehicles,'' UMTRI-
2012-7, April 2012. Link: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/90856.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Improving the Ease of Using the Tether Anchorage
FMVSS No. 225 currently requires vehicle manufacturers to equip
vehicles with a tether anchorage at three rear designated seating
positions (two of these positions are also required to be equipped with
lower anchorages). Tether anchorages must be in a specified zone
accessible without the need for any tools other than a screwdriver or
coin. Tether anchorages must be easy to use, as they are the primary
factor behind the estimated 36-50 lives saved a year following NHTSA's
adoption of FMVSS No. 225.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 64 FR 10786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further improve the usability of the tether anchorage by making
it easier for customers to recognize and access, the NPRM proposed the
following requirements:
Reduce the zone in which a tether anchorage must be
located to prevent tether anchorages from being placed deep under a
vehicle seat.
As some tether anchorages are too close to a structure,
such as a head restraint, specify a minimum 165 mm (6.5 in) distance
from a specified reference point on the vehicle seat to the tether
anchorage to allow for the tightening of the tether strap. This
requirement will ensure that adequate clearance is provided to tighten
the tether strap.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ The NPRM also proposed amending FMVSS No. 213 to limit the
length of the CRS tether hardware assembly (which consists of a
tether hook and hardware to tighten and loosen the tether strap) to
165 mm (6.5 in) so that the tightening mechanism can be easily used
in the clearance space around a tether anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tether anchorages must be accessible without the need for
any tools other than a screwdriver or coin, and without folding the
seatback or removing carpet or other vehicle components. The tether
anchorage could be covered with a cap, flap, or cover, provided that
the cap, flap, or cover is specifically designed to be opened, moved
aside, or to otherwise give access to the anchorage without the use of
any tools and is labeled with a specific symbol indicting the presence
of the tether anchorage underneath.
Requiring a standardized rigid bar so consumers could more
easily recognize and find it, as currently some tether anchorages are
made from flexible webbing.
Standardizing the tether anchorage marking by requiring
that it match a marking on the child restraint system tether and be
placed within a specified distance from the anchorage.
General Comments
Commenters almost unanimously supported improving the ease-of-use
of tether anchorages but differed in their views on specific NPRM
proposals. Overall, child restraint manufacturers and private
individuals supported the proposed improvements to the ease-of-use of
the tether anchorage. SRN and an individual, Dr. Baer,\72\ agreed on
the standardization, accessibility, and clearance (165 mm distance to
tether anchor) proposals to improve tether use. However, Dr. Baer
disagreed with allowing tether anchorage covers, stating that they hide
a safety feature. SRN and Dr. Baer expressed concerns over some tether
anchorage designs concealed by other vehicle structures, making them
difficult to access. IIHS also supported reducing the allowable zone
for tether anchorages to better align allowable locations with the
locations parents expect to find tether anchorages. Safe Kids \73\
expressed support for a harmonized, consistent, and easily understood
way to identify and use the CRAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Dr. Baer is a pediatrician, advocate and nationally
certified child passenger safety instructor best known as The Car
Seat Lady.
\73\ Safe Kids is a network of organizations working to prevent
unintentional childhood injury, the leading cause of death and
disability for children ages 1 to 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the Alliance and several vehicle manufacturers
objected to the proposed requirements to reduce the zone where top
tethers could be located, including specifically to the proposed tether
anchorage location on the package shelf \74\ behind second-row seats in
vehicles such as sedans. The Alliance stated that many passenger cars
that have the tether anchorages conveniently located in the package
shelf behind the seat will not meet the proposed 165 mm minimum wrap
around distance. The Alliance explained that current design locations
that would be precluded by the proposed requirements do, in fact,
enable effective attachment since the path over a fixed head restraint
or under an adjustable head restraint provides additional wraparound
distance to tighten the tether strap. Several vehicle manufacturers
stated that the proposed requirement would force the relocation of
tether anchorages rearward in the vehicle, resulting in less hand
clearance to the vehicle backlight \75\ window for manipulating the
tether hook. Vehicle manufacturers also expressed concern over costly
repackaging of components such as speaker assemblies that currently
occupy the space where the tether anchorage would have to be placed.
Some commenters urged NHTSA to use a point farther forward in the
vehicle's seat than the proposed SB point, explaining the SB point is
not a reference that can be found on all of their vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ The shelf behind the rear seat in a sedan.
\75\ Backlight is the rear windshield or back window glass in a
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance and several vehicle manufacturers sought clarification
on some terms related to the reduced tether anchorage zone under the
seat, and also commented on other proposed provisions for improving the
ease-of-use of tether anchorages (e.g., accessing tether anchorages
without tools, accessing tether anchorages without folding the seatback
or removing carpet or other vehicle components, such as luggage
compartment security covers, and using rigid bars in light trucks).
Commenters also expressed concerns with the proposed requirements based
on their implications and costs. Vehicle manufacturers generally
commented that the proposed 3-year lead time is insufficient to account
for necessary changes, and many asked for a phase-in of the
requirements.
a. Attaching to the Tether Anchorage
Tether Anchorage Accessibility--Zone Under the Seat
To promote accessible tether anchorages, current FMVSS No. 225
requires that tether anchorages be located within the shaded zone shown
in figures 3 through 7 of FMVSS No. 225 for the designated seating
position (DSP) where the anchorage is installed. In considering changes
to FMVSS No. 225 to further increase tether anchorage accessibility,
the agency first evaluated vehicle fleet data to better understand
where tether anchorages are currently located. The evaluation found
that the most common tether anchorage
[[Page 1304]]
locations are the seatback (41 percent), the package shelf (37
percent), the back wall of the occupant compartment (8 percent), the
roof (6 percent), the floor (4 percent), and under the seat (3
percent). NHTSA contemplated the merits of designing the NPRM to
considerably limit the zones in figures 3 through 7, but decided
against this approach following review of NHTSA's test data. This data
showed that the current allowable locations of tether anchorages do not
increase the risk of injuries, as their performance and loading to the
anchorages are very similar to tether anchorages that are centered and
closer to the seat. Further, NHTSA acknowledges that vehicle
manufacturers must consider many factors in deciding where to place a
tether anchorage, including the strength of the structure to which the
tether anchorage is affixed, the degree to which the tether anchorage--
or the child restraint, when using the anchorage--interferes with
ingress, egress, seating, and/or the comfort and safety of vehicle
occupants. Due to these considerations, vehicle manufacturers sometimes
install tether anchorages slightly off-center to a seating position, or
on the roof, floor, or back wall. Recognizing there is merit in
providing flexibility to manufacturers to balance where to locate the
anchorages, the agency decided not to considerably narrow the zones in
figures 3 through 7.\76\ Instead, the NPRM sought to improve the ease
of using tether anchorages via other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ IIHS was the sole commenter that encouraged NHTSA to
further reduce the allowable zone for tether anchorages to better
align allowable locations with where parents expect to find tether
anchorages. While NHTSA agrees a more reduced zone would place
tether anchorages where consumers may be more likely to anticipate
them, the agency must also consider other factors a vehicle
manufacturer has to weigh when deciding the location of tether
anchorages. Manufacturers consider factors such as strength of the
structures, features that the manufacturer may design into seats
such as pass through openings, seat back folding mechanisms that may
cause the tether anchorages to be in the back of the seat, and other
design considerations. Thus, NHTSA is not reducing the zones in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the agency proposed to reduce the allowable zone under the
seat, because the shaded zone shown in figures 3 through 7 encompasses
a wide area that has resulted in some tether anchorages being located
where consumers have had difficulty accessing them, such as deep under
the seat where folding the seat is required to reach/attach the tether
anchorage.\77\ As such, NHTSA proposed to amend figures 3 through 7 in
the standard to disallow tether anchorages from being placed deep under
the seat. Specifically, the agency proposed that the forwardmost edge
of the allowable tether anchorage zone represented by the shaded area
in figure 3 of the standard be moved rearward to a position defined by
the intersection of the vehicle floor with a plane parallel to the
torso line reference plane passing through the rearmost point of the
bottom of the seat at its centerline.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ This deep under the seat location is the forward-most edge
of the area under the vehicle seat. The location is defined by the
intersection of the torso line reference plane (defined by the 2016
SAE J826 two-dimensional drafting template) and the floor pan.
\78\ Vehicles with tether anchorages located deep under the seat
where the seat must be folded to reach the anchorages are no longer
manufactured, so this change in requirements will have little or no
impact on current vehicle designs. However, the amendment is needed
to prevent these designs from coming back into the fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received
Vehicle manufacturers generally disagreed with the proposal laid
out in the NPRM. Global stated that for certain vehicle designs the
bottom of the seat may be the most suitable location for the anchorages
and requested that the agency permit continued use of the bottom of the
seat for tether anchorages if the manufacturer includes appropriate
markings on the seatback to alert consumers to the anchorage location.
The Alliance argued the proposal to restrict the allowable tether zone
under the seat may be appropriate for passenger cars with limited space
under the seat, but it unnecessarily limits the location of the
anchorage for mini-vans, vans and some SUVs. The Alliance provided
figures in its comments \79\ showing a full-size van rear seat with the
upper tether anchorage located on the seat structure forward of the
forward-most limit of the proposed zone and explained that the location
provides a readily accessible upper anchorage point formed into the
seat. The Alliance stated the proposed acceptable zone would require
additional anchorage hardware that would need to be welded to the seat
structure. The Alliance explained that because the current design is
stamped into the existing seat structure, manufacturers can voluntarily
provide additional anchorages at very low cost (i.e., the 10-seat
version of this full-size van has eight tether anchorages available for
use). The Alliance opined that there is no need to revise the zone such
that these tether anchorages would no longer be permitted, given the
easy access and visibility of tether anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Figure 3 of Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Ford commented that the proposal to limit the tether
anchorage location using a plane that is parallel to the torso line
that passes through the ``rearmost point of the bottom of the seat'' is
overly restrictive for some free-standing seats (i.e., SUVs and vans).
Ford suggested basing the forward-most limit of the acceptable zone on
the SgRP. Ford proposed using a vertical plane 120 mm rearward of the
SgRP as the forward limit of the acceptable zone, which would remove
the ambiguity regarding the ``rearmost point of the bottom of the
seat'' and, combined with labeling, permit some currently existing
under-seat designs that do not have accessibility issues. Ford added
that the plane is already specified in the standard to define the
forward-most limit of the lower anchorage acceptable zone. Ford
included three illustrations \80\ depicting the current allowable
under-seat zone, the allowable zone proposed in the NPRM, and a
modified proposal that would limit the anchorage location to the plane
120 mm rear of the SgRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Ford's illustrations can be found in figure 3 of Docket No.
NHTSA-2014-0123-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance and Honda requested clarification on how to define the
intersection of the vehicle floor with a plane parallel to the torso
line reference plane passing through the rear-most point of the bottom
of the seat at the centerline of the seat. Both the Alliance \81\ and
Honda \82\ presented illustrations of different scenarios where they
indicated the rearmost point of the bottom seat was unclear and
requested clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Alliance's illustrations can be found on pages 8-9 of
Docket No. NHTSA2014-0123-0027.
\82\ Honda's illustrations can be found on pages 3 of Docket No.
NHTSA2014-0123-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Alliance explained that tether anchorages cannot
be in the seatback if the seatback plane is located anterior \83\ to
the proposed line in figure 3 of the proposed regulatory text in the
NPRM. To prevent misinterpretation, the Alliance recommended removing
the line from figure 3 in the proposed regulatory text in the NPRM or
amending the requirement to call out this line as a line that
represents the vehicle specific seatback surface within the prescribed
zone, for the seatback profile similar to the callout for the vehicle
floor pan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The Alliance's illustrations can be found on pages 9 of
Docket No. NHTSA2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1305]]
Agency Response
Comments expressing concerns over how the NPRM proposed to define
the rearmost point of the bottom of the seat to locate the plane
setting the limit of the allowable zone have merit. Therefore,
following careful consideration and evaluation, this final rule adopts
requirements to specify the allowable tether anchorage zone under the
seat using a vertical plane 120 mm rear of the H-Point to define the
allowable limit.
Commenters presented several scenarios in which defining the
rearmost point of the bottom of the seat was not possible, as the
proposed requirement did not provide sufficient details on how to
precisely define it. Commenters also stated that some existing easily
accessible tether anchorages near the back of but slightly under the
seat may not be compliant with the proposed tether anchorage zone.
These anchorages are considered easily accessible because the seats do
not require folding to access the anchorages and the anchorages can be
easily identified since they have the proposed markings.
In acknowledgment of these concerns the Agency did a series of
installations and measurements to evaluate whether the vehicles with
existing tether anchorages near the back but slightly under the seat
are easy to use, and to determine whether the zone under the seat
suggested by Ford is appropriate to define the allowable tether zone
under the seat.\84\ NHTSA selected three vehicles (2015 Toyota Sienna,
2018 Freightliner Sprinter, and 2020 Ford Transit) with tethers located
low on the seatback (similar to the ones commenters stated were easily
accessible locations) to evaluate whether they were easily accessed
when installing a CRS, whether the tether anchorage location would fail
to be located within the NPRM's proposed allowable tether anchorage
zone, and whether it would be within the Ford-proposed allowable tether
anchorage zone (defined by a vertical plane 120 mm rearward of the SgRP
as the forward limit of the allowable tether anchorage zone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Evaluation of FMVSS No. 225 Tether Anchor Zones Under the
Seat. May 2022. Kedryn Wietholter, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Evaluation summary will be docketed along with this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conducting the evaluation, NHTSA installed the Evenflo Triumph
and the Britax Advocate Clicktight in the three selected vehicles to
determine whether the tether was easily installed. The trials showed
that the tether anchorages were easy to locate and use for attaching
the CRS tether anchor connectors.
NHTSA defined the allowable tether zones under the seat using both
the NPRM's proposed zone (parallel torso reference line that passed
through the rearmost point of the bottom of the seat) and Ford's
proposed zone (defined with a vertical plane 120 mm rearward of the H-
point) \85\ in the three selected vehicles. These measurements were
performed to verify whether Ford's proposed method for defining the
allowable tether zone under the seat would remove the ambiguities
present in the NPRM's proposed zone, and to evaluate whether the tether
anchorages in the vehicles are located within the NPRM's proposed
allowable zone and/or Ford's proposed zone (but using the H-point
rather than the SgRP suggested by Ford).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ NHTSA chose to use the H-point as it can be measured in the
laboratory as opposed to the SgRP, which is a manufacturer-defined
point. Both points are very similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evaluations confirmed that defining the tether anchorage zone
with the vertical line 120 mm behind the H-point removed the
ambiguities contained in the NPRM's proposed method. The evaluations
showed that the tether anchorages of all three vehicle seats were easy
to access and use for installing child restraints. However, these
tether anchorages would not meet the allowable tether anchorage zone
proposed in the NPRM, while they would pass using the 120 mm behind the
H-point measurement method. This result indicates that an allowable
tether anchorage zone determined as a plane 120 mm rearward of the H-
point better reflects ease of access and use of the tether anchorages
than the NPRM's proposed allowable zone.
Table 1--Summary of Tether Anchorage Location With Respect to the NPRM's Proposed Allowable Tether Anchorage Zone and That Determined as a Plane 120 mm
Behind the H-Point
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule zone
Year Manufacturer Model Seat position Current zone NPRM zone (120 mm behind H-
point)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015............................ Toyota............ Sienna............ 2nd Row Driver Pass.............. Fail.............. Pass.
Outboard.
2018............................ Freightliner...... Sprinter.......... 2nd Row Passenger Pass.............. Fail.............. Pass.
Outboard.
2020............................ Ford.............. Transit........... 2nd Row Passenger Pass.............. Fail.............. Pass.
Outboard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM's proposed requirement sought to eliminate tether
anchorages located deep under the seat where folding the seat is
necessary to reach it. NHTSA believes the limit on the tether anchorage
location under the seat defined by a vertical plane 120 mm rear of the
H-Point meets this intent. NHTSA also concludes that using a vertical
plane 120 mm rearward of the H-point is easily defined, removes
ambiguities commenters noted in the NPRM's proposed tether anchorage
zone, and better reflects the accessibility and usability of the tether
anchorages. Therefore, the agency is adopting requirements to specify
the allowable tether anchorage zone under the seat using a vertical
plane 120 mm rear of the H-Point to define the allowable limit. This
requirement will prevent tether anchorages from being located deep
under the seat where they are difficult to access, addressing comments
received.
b. Tightening the Tether
NHTSA proposed requirements to make it easier for a consumer to
attach a child restraint tether hook to a tether anchorage and tighten
the tether strap. Currently, FMVSS No. 225 specifies that tether
anchorages must be located within the shaded zone shown in figures 3 to
7 of the standard for the DSP
[[Page 1306]]
in which the anchorage is installed.\86\ NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS
No. 225 to require that tether anchorages have clearance space for
tightening the strap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ The standard specifies a reference point ``W'' that is 50
mm (1.9 in) below and 50 mm (1.9 in) rearward of the shoulder
reference point (R-point), and a reference point ``V'' that is 350
mm (13.7 in) vertically above and 175 mm (6.8 in) horizontally back
from the H-point. The standard also specifies a strap wrap-around
length of 200 mm (7.8 in) from the W-point and a strap wrap-around
length of 250 mm (9.8 in) from the V-point (see figure 4 of FMVSS
No. 225). Tether anchorages may be located only within the zone that
is generated using both reference points and their associated strap
wrap-around lengths to ensure there is sufficient distance for a
tether strap and hook to be attached to the anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM proposed to require a 165 mm (6.5 in) minimum distance
from each tether anchorage to a seat-based reference point for each
designated seating position (DSP) with a tether anchorage. In 2012 the
LATCH Usability study \87\ found that, under the current FMVSS No. 225,
tether anchorages can be located too close to the head restraint, on
top of the seatback, or the tether attachment point on a CRS, resulting
in insufficient clearance to tighten the CRS tether strap. The study
reviewed the tether hardware assembly on 21 child restraint systems
made by 11 different CRS manufacturers.\88\ The review found the tether
hardware assembly of the 21 child restraints ranged from 102 to 184 mm
(4 to 7.2 in) in length, with 15 CRSs having tether hardware assembly
lengths between 140 mm (5.5 in) and 165 mm (6.5 in). The study
suggested that having tether anchorages on a package shelf or behind
the seatback at a distance of at least 165 mm (6.5 in) rearward or
below the back of the head restraint or top of the seatback for DSPs
without a head restraint would provide greater clearance for attaching
the tether hook of a CRS and tightening the strap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Klinich, K.D., Flannagan, C.A., Manary, M.A., and Moore,
J.L. ``LATCH usability in vehicles.'' Link: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/90856. The report was
sponsored by IIHS for developing IIHS's rating of the usability of
the child restraint anchorage systems in various vehicles. See IIHS
Status Report: Vol. 47 No. 3, April 12, 2012. http://www.iihs.org/sr/default.aspx.
\88\ This hardware consists of the tether hook and hardware to
tighten and loosen the tether strap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In drafting the NPRM NHTSA reviewed the LATCH usability study and
tentatively determined that specifying a minimum 165 mm (6.5 in)
distance from the tether anchorage to a defined reference point on the
vehicle seat would improve tether anchorages' ease-of-use. The NPRM
explained that this clearance would allow for the tightening of tether
straps in most vehicles without interference from other structures,
such as the head restraint.
The NPRM proposed that the reference point on the vehicle seat,
which NHTSA designated as ``SB,'' be defined as the intersection of the
plane parallel to the torso line reference plane (defined in figure 3
of FMVSS No. 225) that passes through the rearmost point of the seat
and the wrap-around line from the ``V-point'' to the tether
anchorage.\89\ The agency noted that both the V- and W-point could have
been used for determining the vehicle seat reference point SB. NHTSA
selected the V-point to define the reference point because it would
encompass both low mounted and high-mounted tether straps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ The rearmost point of the seat includes the head restraint
if one is present. The V-point represents a low-mounted tether strap
on a CRS and the W-point represents a high-mounted tether strap on a
CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tether Anchorage Location--165 mm to a Reference Point
Comments on 165 mm Distance to Reference Point
In response to the NPRM many vehicle manufacturers stated that
requiring manufactures to move tether anchorages to locations meeting
the 165 mm (6.5 in) specification is impractical within current styling
because substantial vehicle components currently occupy the locations.
The Alliance stated that the relocation of a single component has
implications for other design considerations including, but not limited
to, wiring harnesses, body in white attachments and reinforcements,
electromagnetic interference, and radio-frequency interference re-
qualification. FCA stated that moving the tether anchorages rearward
would force a complete redesign of the package shelf, including re-
packaging of the existing package shelf components as well as moving
the reinforcements. FCA said that if speakers or modules must be
relocated to the door or the trunk changes to these components would
also be necessary, including side impact countermeasures, door
electrical wire harnesses, and interior trim modifications. The
Alliance added that many passenger cars with tether anchorages located
in the package shelf behind the seat will not meet the proposed 165 mm
minimum wrap around distance,\90\ even though the anchorages are easy
to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ The term wrap around distance is a distance measurement
made using a flexible tape measure. One end of the tape is held at a
defined point, the tape is wrapped around desired structures, and
held taut at a second defined point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many vehicle manufacturers, the Alliance, and Global stated that
tether anchorage distance and CRS hardware incompatibility should be
addressed in FMVSS No. 213 by limiting the size of the tether hook and
other CRS attachment hardware.\91\ Some vehicle manufacturers and the
Alliance provided data on the sizes of tether hooks and hardware in
stating that the lack of uniformity in CRS attachment hardware and its
mounting location on the CRS point to the actual source of the
compatibility issue, rather than the vehicle ``swing zone'' behind the
seatback or head restraint. Hyundai stated that tight installations can
be achieved even with vehicles that have less than the proposed 165 mm
(6.5 inches) distance, with a CRS tether hardware and strap measuring
170 mm (6.7 inches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ The NPRM proposed to limit the tether hook and hardware to
165 mm (6.5 in).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance and Toyota identified potential problems with applying
the proposed procedure to certain vehicles regarding the definition of
the point SB. They presented a case for some head restraints where the
torso reference plane may not intersect the strap wrap around line.
Therefore, for this type of head restraint, the reference point SB does
not exist. The Alliance and Toyota also presented a case in which the
reference point SB cannot be defined when the seatback angle is larger
than the torso angle.
Toyota requested that NHTSA develop a repeatable and feasible
requirement regarding the distance from the tether anchorage to the
DSP. Toyota suggested that because the existence of reference point SB
is dependent on the rearmost point of the seat, which can vary
dramatically based on seat design, one potential method to solve this
issue would be to develop a new tool to measure the distance of 165 mm
from the tether anchorage instead of using the concept of reference
point SB.
Several commenters also suggested an alternative way of defining a
clearance zone. FCA recommended a general redefinition of the reference
point SB without providing a suggested definition. The Alliance opined
that the proposed minimum wraparound distance, measured from point SB,
is unnecessarily stringent and does not take current CRS installation
practices into account. The Alliance and Honda recommended that a point
farther forward in the vehicle DSP, representing a tether attachment
point on a child restraint, would provide a more practicable reference
point for this measurement.
Britax stated that mandating a minimal vehicle interior distance
should facilitate better tether
[[Page 1307]]
installation, particularly in sedan vehicles with rear windows close to
rear seatbacks. Britax anecdotally noted it has experienced situations
where the distance between the vehicle seat and tether anchorage would
not permit proper tether attachment and tightening. UMTRI supported the
implementation of a 165-mm clearance around the tether anchorage in
vehicles and the regulation of a maximum adjusted length of the tether
attachment hardware to 165 mm to improve compatibility. UMTRI noted
that these recommendations were based on usability testing of CRS with
a single strap tether.
Post NPRM Research
UMTRI Research
After carefully reviewing comments that raised concerns over the
proposed 165 mm tether anchorage clearance criterion, the agency
determined that it was appropriate to task UMTRI with conducting a
study \92\ to: (1) define an alternate reference point to the proposed
SB point that would be more practical, (2) ensure that the requirements
do not interfere with Australian Design Rule (ADR) 34/2,\93\ (3)
estimate the number of vehicles that may need modification to meet
clearance criteria based on the proposed and alternative reference
points, and (4) evaluate alternative ways of ensuring tether tightness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Klinich, K.D., Boyle, K., Orton, N.R., Manary, M.A., &
Ebert, S. (2016, January). Investigation of clearance criterion
between tether anchor and head restraint. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Report will be docketed
alongside this final rule.
\93\ ADR 34 Link: https://ablis.business.gov.au/service/vic/australian-design-rule-adr-34-child-restraint-anchorages-and-child-restraint-anchor-fittings/24383. This standard specifies a clearance
around the tether anchorage to enable access and attachment of the
tether hook to the anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In carrying out its study UMTRI used two data sets to estimate the
proportion of vehicles that would meet the proposed 165-mm clearance
criteria. First, UMTRI surveyed 60 top selling 2012-2013 MY vehicles to
collect data on each vehicle's tether anchorage location, head
restraint characteristics, and tether routing path. UMTRI used a rigid
165-mm gauge with tether hook to evaluate whether the tether anchorage
location met the proposed criteria. This data set showed that 21 of the
surveyed vehicles had tether anchorages on the rear package shelf.
Eighteen of these vehicles were sedans and three were pickup trucks. Of
the sedans, only one met the proposed criteria. For the 17 sedans that
did not meet the NPRM's proposed criteria, routing the tether over the
head restraint improved access to the tether hardware.
UMTRI surveyed photos of the 21 vehicles with a tether in a package
shelf to evaluate potential barriers in moving the tether anchorages.
About half of the vehicles had no visible barriers at outboard seating
positions, two vehicles had potential for interference from rear window
glazing during installation, and the remaining vehicles had speakers in
the way. The center seating position in 5 vehicles had rear defroster
structures that may be in the way of relocation.
The second data set used a survey of 98 top selling 2010-2011 MY
vehicles. The tether anchorage location was measured for these vehicles
via wraparound distance relative to an estimated shoulder reference
point. These surveys collected photos that helped identify structures
that would hinder any tether anchorage relocation if the 165 mm
criterion was not met. Data from the 98 vehicle-dataset showed that 44
percent of vehicles with the tether anchorage on the seatback would
meet the 165 mm criterion. Of the 35 vehicles with the tether
anchorages located in the package shelf of the outboard seating
position, 24 percent would not meet the 165 mm criterion, but could
improve usability if the tether was routed over the head restraint.
UMTRI then developed an alternate reference zone using established
reference points such as the H-point (hip point) and the R-point
(shoulder point) using 21 vehicles (MY2010-2014) scanned by UMTRI
during previous projects.\94\ A circle with a 325 millimeter radius
centered on the R-point and truncated 230 mm below its center was used
to create the limits of the allowed tether anchorage zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See Table 1 in the report titled ``Investigation of
clearance criterion between tether anchor and head restraint'' by
UMTRI. Report will be docketed along this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI evaluated 11 SUVs and trucks in the scanned vehicle dataset
\95\ that had an upper seatback tether anchorage location. To avoid
conflicts with the IIHS usability rating criteria \96\ the circle was
truncated at 230 mm below the R-point. Doing so allowed for the tether
anchorage to be located far enough to ensure tightness while not
conflicting with IIHS usability rating criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ The other 10 vehicles were sedans.
\96\ IIHS LATCH usability rating considers tether anchorages
located in the top 85 percent of the seat back as ``good.'' The IIHS
LATCH Usability Rating Guidelines can be found here: www.iihs.org/media/8f828313-d122-4d27-a3b0-f2b8ec60065d/wOdYVA/Ratings/Protocols/current/LATCH_rating_guidelines.pdf (last accessed 4-16-2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI evaluated the proposed and alternative tether anchorage
clearance criteria against 20 of the 21 \97\ scanned vehicles (MY2010-
2014) to determine whether vehicles met the proposed distance criteria
and quantify the distance a tether anchorage would have to be relocated
if that vehicle did not meet the proposed or alternative criteria.
Results were mixed.\98\ Eleven models met both criteria. Four failed
both criteria but using the alternative criterion the tether anchorage
relocation distance was shorter than for the 165 mm clearance
criterion. Two passed the alternative criterion but failed the 165 mm
criterion. Two vehicles with tether anchorages in the upper seatback
(and not the package shelf) passed the 165 mm criterion but failed the
alternative criterion. For these two vehicles, tightening the tether
was difficult for installing some child restraints. The tether
anchorages for these two vehicles would need to be moved 1-2 mm lower
to meet the 325 mm truncated sphere zone, which would also permit
tightening the tether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ The Ford F150 was not evaluated, as pickup trucks have
different geometry.
\98\ See Table 1 in UMTRI's report for detailed results.
Klinich, K.D., Boyle, K., Orton, N.R., Manary, M.A., & Ebert, S.
(2016, January). Investigation of clearance criterion between tether
anchor and head restraint (Report No. UMTRI-2016-4). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Report
will be docketed along with this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI also performed in-vehicle evaluations for both tether
anchorage clearance criteria on 10 vehicles (MY 2004-2014).\99\ For
this set of vehicles UMTRI found that three vehicles failed both
criteria, while seven met both criteria. Of the three vehicles that
failed both criteria, the distance to move the tether anchorages to
meet the alternative criterion was shorter than that for meeting the
proposed criterion in two vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See Table 2 in UMTRI's report for detailed results.
Klinich, K.D., Boyle, K., Orton, N.R., Manary, M.A., & Ebert, S.
(2016, January). Investigation of clearance criterion between tether
anchor and head restraint (Report No. UMTRI-2016-4). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Report
will be docketed along with this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its review of the two vehicle surveys UMTRI found that about
one-third of vehicles had tether anchorages located on the package
shelf and that the majority did not meet the 165-mm criteria if the
tether strap was specified for routing under the head restraint.
However, UMTRI found that in most of these vehicles routing the tether
strap over the head restraint provided good access to the tether
adjuster hardware.
VRTC Research
Following review of the UMTRI study, VRTC evaluated the alternative
criterion (zone based on a 325 mm circle centered on the R-point), the
proposed 165 mm clearance distance, and the
[[Page 1308]]
lengths of CRS tether hardware.\100\ VRTC measured six vehicles with
various tether anchorage locations in the rear driver side position and
rear center position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Wietholter, K., & Smith, J. (2019, November). Evaluation
of tether anchor zones for FMVSS No. 225 (Report No. DOT HS 812
842). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Report will be docketed along with this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tether Anchorage Measurements
The VRTC Tether Anchorage Measurement results were similar to those
found by UMTRI (see Table 2). The six vehicles' seating positions with
package shelf tether anchorages failed the proposed 165 mm distance.
Only two of those six tether anchorages failed the alternative
criterion. Of the two vehicles that failed both criteria, the needed
relocation distance of the tether anchorage to meet the criteria was
smaller for the alternative criterion than the proposed criterion. All
seating positions with the tether anchorage on the seatback or roof
passed both criteria.
Table 2--VRTC Tether Anchorage Vehicle Survey Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Tether location
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 325 mm zone 165 mm tether
Rear driver Rear center (mm) distance (mm)
Year Make Model position (RDP) position (RCP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 Ford Taurus............................................................. Package Shelf...... ................... 384 149
Package Shelf...... 436 141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 Cadillac CTS............................................................ Package Shelf...... ................... 294 68
Package Shelf...... 409 74
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Toyota Sienna........................................................... Seatback........... ................... 742 757
N/A................ N/A N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 Hyundai Sonata.......................................................... Package Shelf...... ................... 308 75
Package Shelf...... 365 65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Chevrolet Tahoe......................................................... Seatback........... ................... 625 657
Seat Back.......... 628 637
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Nissan Rogue............................................................ Seatback........... ................... 433 469
Roof............... 630 460
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRTC found one of the six vehicles' tether anchorages was off-
center for its designated seating position. VRTC used a FARO arm \101\
to plot the desired points into a 2D circle diagram. Due to the offset,
measurements for that tether anchorage do not correctly capture the
depth distance. Therefore, VRTC used a 325 mm sphere (truncated at the
bottom) instead of a two-dimensional circle to define the 325 mm zone
(see figure 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ A FARO arm is a portable coordinate measuring machine that
measures the location of a probe in a 3D space.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.029
CRS Hardware Measurements
VRTC also measured the tether hardware length of twenty CRSs. The
longest tether strap hardware was 190 mm. The shortest was 83 mm.
Sixteen of the twenty tether hardware were less than 165 mm in length.
CRS Installation on Vehicles
VRTC completed CRS installations to verify that a vehicle with a
165-mm tether anchorage distance measurement would allow for proper
installation of a CRS with a tether hardware length of 165 mm. The CRS
selected was an Evenflo Triumph with a tether hardware length of 164
mm. Two vehicles with short distances (close to the 165 mm proposed
minimum distance) to the tether anchorage were selected for this
portion of the study. The 2010 Ford Taurus (RDP), which had a 149-mm
[[Page 1309]]
tether anchorage distance measurement, was closer to 165 mm than the
other selected vehicle. The 2011 Cadillac CTS (RCP) had one of the
smaller tether anchorage distance measurements of 74 mm and an odd seat
shape. Both the 2010 Ford Taurus (RDP) and 2011 Cadillac CTS (RCP)
positions passed the UMTRI alternative criterion based on the 325-
millimeter circle centered on the R-point.
Because the 2010 Ford Taurus (RDP) had a tether anchorage distance
measurement from the proposed SB point of less than 165 mm, the study
anticipated that the tightening of the tether would be difficult.
However, the vehicle owner's manual included instructions to install
the CRS using the tether attachment by routing it under the head
restraint. Since the head restraint was adjustable, no difficulties
were experienced when tightening the tether. This result suggests that
the tether anchorage distance measurement, defined as the distance from
the tether anchorage to the rearmost point on the seat (SB point), does
not account for the ease of installation when the head restraint is
raised or removed for CRS installation.
Further, since the tether anchorage distance from the SB point for
the 2011 Cadillac CTS (RCP) was only 74 mm (significantly lower than
the proposed 165 mm), NHTSA expected that the tether would be difficult
to tighten when installing a CRS in this seating position. However,
installation was not difficult because of the lack of head restraint.
Specifically, the seatback cushion in the Cadillac was thick, which
allowed enough space between the tether anchorage and the CRS for the
tightening of the hardware. For the 2011 Cadillac CTS (RDP), the
vehicle owner's manual specified that the CRS tether attachment should
be routed over the fixed head restraint, which permitted easy
tightening of the tether attachment. If a vehicle with similar spacing
had an adjustable head restraint and specified routing under the head
restraint in the vehicle owner's manual, it would have been difficult
to tighten the tether attachment because the tether attachment hardware
would be underneath the head restraint. This finding indicates that
ease of installation can be improved with vehicle owner's manual
instructions and not just measurement requirements.
Agency Response
After carefully considering comments received and reviewing the
results of the UMTRI and VRTC studies, this final rule is implementing
a 325 mm radius sphere zone (from R point, with truncation) instead of
the NPRM's proposed 165-mm distance from the tether anchorage to the
back of the seatback. The decision to adopt the alternative 325 mm zone
resolves noted issues in defining the SB point for the 165-mm distance,
because the R-point, already defined in the standard, is used in the
alternative 325 mm radius sphere zone to define the center of the
sphere. Therefore, NHTSA will adopt a 325 mm radius sphere zone (from
R-point, with truncation) to define the allowable area for the tether
anchorages.
Some commenters, including Honda, Alliance, Ford, and FCA,
expressed concern for the expensive tooling costs needed to relocate
the tether anchorages. However, the modified requirements adopted by
this final rule will minimize or eliminate the number of vehicles that
need tooling changes to relocate the tether anchorages, greatly
reducing any projected tooling costs.
NHTSA acknowledges Honda's suggestion that the required minimum
distance of the tether anchorage should be from a point simulating the
attachment of the tether strap on the CRS to the tether anchorage,
rather than the SB point. However, the current specifications of the
tether anchorage location in FMVSS No. 225 are with respect to the W-
point, which is approximately the tether strap attachment point on the
CRS. Additionally, this final rule's requirements specify a minimum
distance of the tether anchorage with respect to the R-point, which was
found to be sufficient for correctly installing and tightening the
tether of CRSs. This final rule's adopted approach achieves the goal of
improving usability in a practicable manner without imposing design
restrictions and undue cost and redesign.
Finally, NHTSA is providing a longer lead time (discussed in detail
below) to minimize any costly design changes borne by manufacturers to
move tether anchorage locations during the mid-lifecycle of their
vehicles.
Comments on Backlight Interference
Several commenters, including FCA, the Alliance, and Hyundai,
raised concerns that moving the tether anchorage rearward will likely
interfere with the backlight during child restraint tether hook
attachment and detachment. FCA noted that the slope of the back glass
may need to be changed to alleviate the interference condition. FCA
further stated that all of its current tether anchorages are harmonized
worldwide and that, if NHTSA mandates relocating the tether anchorage
rearward, its vehicles may no longer meet the requirements of
ADR34,\102\ which governs child restraint anchorages for vehicles sold
in Australia. FCA stated that ADR 34.6 requires accessibility to engage
an attaching clip and a clearance zone around the tether anchorage. FCA
stated that, in the worst-case event, two designs for the package shelf
might be necessary, which would increase the overall vehicle cost in
all markets. The Alliance stated that the proposed requirement's forced
relocation of tether anchorages rearward in the vehicle would result in
less hand clearance to the vehicle backlight for attaching and
detaching the tether hook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Australian Design Rule 34. The stated function of this
Australian Design Rule is to specify requirements for ``Child
Restraint Anchorages' and `Child Restraint Anchor Fittings' which
provide for the connection of standard `Attaching Clips' so that
`Child Restraints' may be adequately secured to the vehicle. It
specifies a standard package of fitting hardware and accessibility
requirements to facilitate correct installation and
interchangeability of 'Child Restraints'. www.infrastructure.gov.au/
infrastructure-transport-vehicles/vehicles/vehicle-design-
regulation/australian-design-rules/third-edition. Last accessed
November 4, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
With this final rule's adoption of the aforementioned changes in
determining the allowable tether anchorage zone, any cases where the
tether anchorage is pushed back towards the rear window, causing
potential conflict with the ADR, will be minimized or eliminated.
However, UMTRI's evaluations of the updated measurement showed a small
portion of vehicles would still experience conflict based on the
requirements of this final rule, so some vehicle designs would have to
find alternative locations or design to meet both ADR 34 requirements
and FMVSS No. 225 requirements. To the extent doing so is required, the
extended lead time and phase-in period provided by this final rule
should help to alleviate cost and design burdens to manufacturers.
Comments on Head Restraints and Routing of Tether
The Alliance suggested that the tether anchorage location
requirements relative to the back of the seat or head restraint should
not apply to vehicle seating positions (1) without a head restraint,
(2) with a head restraint that is removed for child restraint
installation, or (3) when the vehicle manufacturer specifies that the
tether strap is to be routed over or around the head restraint.
Similarly, Global commented that the tether anchorage location
requirements should not apply to seats having adjustable or removable
[[Page 1310]]
head restraints, since such head restraints can be adjusted or removed
to allow sufficient space for tether adjustment. Global agreed that the
distance criterion might be applied to certain seats having a fixed
head restraint, where there is no space between the head restraint and
the seat top to enable tightening of the tether strap.
Agency Response
Following careful consideration, this final rule requires vehicles
with adjustable/removable head restraints and no head restraints to
locate the tether anchorages beyond the 325 mm truncated sphere from
the R point to ensure tethers can be easily tightened. The agency
disagrees with the Alliance's recommendation that the tether anchorage
location requirement behind the seat should not apply to DSPs with no
head restraints and removable head restraints. Vehicles in this
category could run the risk of having the tether anchorage too close to
the CRS, preventing a tight tether installation. While the tether could
be routed over the adjustable/removable head restraint, thereby
increasing the wraparound distance to the tether anchorage and removing
interferences for tightening the tether strap, most manufacturer
instructions specify routing the tether strap under the adjustable/
removable head restraint. Routing the tether under the head restraint
provides the shortest path from the tether anchorage to the CRS, which
may have some benefits during a crash (less webbing length results in
less stretch). Routing the tether under the head restraint may also
offer improved CRS performance in far side impact scenarios as tether
routings over the head restraint sometimes slip to the side of the head
restraint, allowing for more side excursion. In addition, because some
head restraints that protrude or tilt to the front at times interfere
with the installation of the CRS, it is typically advised to remove or
move the head restraint to a higher position to eliminate this
interference. Because adjustable/removable head restraints are likely
to be used with a tether routed under the head restraint (for
adjustable head restraints), it is important to have the tether
anchorage beyond the 325 mm truncated sphere from the R point to ensure
tethers can be easily tightened.
In contrast with the Alliance's recommendation, Global suggested
that the requirement for the tether anchorage location behind the seat
should only apply to DSPs with fixed head restraints. We disagree. As
fixed head restraint seating positions do not have any elements that
interfere with the installation and tightening of the tether, the
agency believes these seating positions should be excluded from the
tether anchorage location requirements to ensure there is sufficient
space to tighten the tether. Additionally, seating positions with fixed
head restraints where the tethers are routed over the restraints
increase the wraparound distance from the CRS to the tether anchorages,
so they are less likely to prevent tightening of the tether due to
limited distance. Finally, there is no interference of the head
restraint to route and tighten the tether for seats with fixed head
restraints. For these reasons, this final rule excludes DSPs with fixed
head restraints from the tether anchorage location requirements.
Comments on Tether Anchorage Location and Pass-Through Door
The Alliance expressed concerns with relocating the center tether
anchorage as proposed in the NPRM in relation to a specific design
featuring a tether anchorage installed above a luggage compartment
pass-through door.\103\ The Alliance stated that the proposed minimum
wraparound distance would necessitate a tether anchorage position lower
on the seatback. The Alliance explained that to accommodate this
revised tether anchor position, the size of the pass-through door/
opening to the luggage compartment would need to be smaller, thereby
significantly limiting its usefulness. The Alliance stated it is not
practicable to locate the tether anchorage on the pass-through door
because the door lacks the structural strength to meet FMVSS No. 225's
tether anchorage strength requirements. The Alliance recommended that
the center seating position should thus be exempted from the minimum
tether anchorage distance requirement relative to the SB point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Shown in figure 16 of the Alliance's submitted comments.
Link: www.regulations.gov/comment/ NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
The modified requirements adopted by this final rule will minimize
or eliminate the tooling costs that would be necessary to relocate the
tether anchorages, and will minimize or eliminate cases where the
tether anchorage location could interfere with the position of a pass-
through on a center seat (if the tether anchorage cannot be located
elsewhere). If a tether anchorage can't be located towards the top of
the seat within the new requirements because of a pass-through opening,
the tether anchorage could instead be located lower in the seat where a
tether strap would go over the pass-through opening area. This scenario
would not interfere with the function of the pass-through door because
it would not be used when a CRS is installed in the center seating
position. As such, the agency is declining to adopt the proposed
exemption.
Comments on the Need for Vehicle Manual Information
SRN stated that head restraints present a significant impediment to
tethering the CRS in many vehicles and recommended that FMVSS No. 225
require vehicle manuals to provide specific instruction for the proper
routing of the tether vis a vis the head restraint, along with clear
guidance for how to adjust the head restraint to achieve proper routing
when necessary. SRN explained that because tethers come in two styles
that affect routing (two-point and three-point), instructions should be
required to address these differences. SRN also stated that
instructions calling for the removal of the head restraint should
clarify whether the head restraint can be reattached once the tether is
attached, or, if not, where the head restraint should be safely stored.
SRN stated that some vehicle owner's manuals have improved these types
of instructions over the years, but that this improvement is far from
consistent. SRN also stated that in some cases, cargo covers, dog
gates, and other accessories supplied by the vehicle manufacturer
impede the route of a tether to the tether anchorage. Based on these
issues, SRN suggested that the manufacturer be required to provide
clear tether routing instructions in the vehicle's manual.
Agency Response
The agency is declining SRN's suggestion to require tether routing
instructions in vehicle manuals, as it falls outside scope of the
proposed requirements in the NPRM and this rulemaking. NHTSA may
consider the addition of instructions for tether routing in vehicle
owners' manuals at a later date.
Comments on the Length of the Minimum Distance to the Tether Anchorage
and Maximum Length of the Tether Hardware
SRN supported efforts to match up the distance from the child
restraint to the tether anchorage and a maximum length of the tether
hardware (the hook + adjuster). However, SRN expressed concern that by
specifying 6.5 inches as
[[Page 1311]]
both the minimum for the distance from the child restraint to the
vehicle's tether anchorage and a maximum for the very shortest tether
length, it will continue to be difficult to properly tighten the tether
when both the CRS and vehicle meet (but do not exceed) the standard.
SRN stated that the minimum distance to the tether anchorage should be
at least a half inch (or more) greater than the maximum-allowed fixed
length of the tether anchorage for the solution to be effective in all
situations (for example, the shortest length for the tether hook and
adjuster could be a maximum of 6 inches and the tether anchorage
distance no less than 6.5 inches).
Agency Response
SRN commented that having the same 165 mm distance as the
requirement to both the tether anchorage distance and the tether
hardware length does not ensure proper tightening of the tether,
commenting that the minimum distance of the tether anchorage needs to
be at least a half inch (or more) greater than the maximum allowed
fixed length of the tether hardware for the solution to be effective.
As the final rule requirements for tether anchorage location have been
modified from those proposed in the NPRM, SRN's suggestion no longer
applies to this final rule.
In support of the modifications adopted in this final rule, during
the VRTC CRS hardware survey, only 4 of the 20 CRSs had hardware
exceeding the 165 mm limit. This finding supports NHTSA's decision to
adopt a tether hardware length requirement of 165 mm or less as
proposed, as most CRSs already comply with this length. Any changes
needed to the tether hardware design in CRSs that currently do not meet
this length should not be burdensome, as there are many tether hardware
designs available that meet the requirement. Further, this requirement
will help address the Alliance and FCA's suggestions to promote CRS
uniformity.
Comments on Requiring Tether Anchorages To Be Close to the Proposed 165
mm Requirement
ARCCA commented that NHTSA's assessment of tether anchorage
locations appeared to only consider the tether's effectiveness in
frontal crashes. ARCCA stated that side impact crashes can result in a
similar number of injuries and fatalities as frontal crashes, and that
they should be given equal consideration. ARCCA explained that the
tether is most effective in frontal crashes, and that a tether also
reduces the amount of roll that a forward-facing CRS experiences when
the tether length is sufficiently limited. ARCCA added that its own
sled testing and quasi-static load testing indicate that the longer the
tether, the more the CRS can roll towards the impact during a side
impact, and that an increased CRS roll results in increased lateral
head excursion. ARCCA explained that this increased head excursion
results in increased head impact injuries, the most frequent mechanism
of serious injury. For these reasons, ARCCA recommended that tether
anchorage locations should be limited to the package shelf and the back
of the vehicle seat, and as close to the proposed 165 mm (6.5-inch)
minimum as possible. Alternatively, ARCCA recommended that when the
distance of the tether anchorage exceeds the 165 mm (6.5-inch) minimum,
a tether guide should be provided at the back top of the seatback that
has sufficient strength to maintain the tether within the guide during
side impact crashes.
Agency Response
This final rule will not reduce the allowable tether anchorage zone
to distances close to 165 mm from the SB point as possible, as
suggested by ARCCA, because doing so would greatly reduce the allowable
tether zone in the standard and may not be feasible in some vehicle
designs.
ARCCA's suggested proposal to include a tether guide is not within
the scope of this rulemaking, and will thus not be addressed, as it was
not proposed in the NPRM and NHTSA does not have any data on tether
guides to aid in side impact crashes.
Requests for Clarification
Global requested clarification of the following:
Which portion of the routing device will be the reference
position for the 165-mm distance measurement?
How much force is to be applied on the strap when making
the measurement?
Agency Response
As the agency is not adopting the 165 mm distance from the SB point
to the tether anchor, these requested clarifications are moot and need
not be addressed, as they do not relate to requirements of this final
rule.
2. Tether Hardware Restrictions
To improve compatibility between vehicles and CRSs, NHTSA proposed
to amend FMVSS No. 213 to require that the tether hardware assembly
(consisting of the tether hook and hardware to tighten and loosen the
tether strap) be no longer than 165 mm (6.5 in). NHTSA proposed this
limit so that all CRS tether straps can be tightened given the minimum
tether anchorage distance from the SB reference point. NHTSA stated
that limiting the length of the tether hardware assembly would not be
overly burdensome for CRS manufacturers, since the assembly consists of
simple parts.
General Comments
The Alliance and FCA opined that the tether anchorage distance and
CRS hardware incompatibility is better addressed through the
introduction of design rules for the attachment hardware in FMVSS No.
213. The Alliance stated that a survey of 16 child restraints
manufactured between 2003 and 2014 found that attachment hardware
lengths varied from 120.6 to 171.4 mm (4.75 to 6.75 inches) in length,
tether hooks alone varied from 60.3 to 63.5 mm (2.375 to 2.5 inches) in
length, and adjuster assemblies varied in both length and circumference
(from 120.6 to 196.8 mm (4.75 to 7.75 inches) in circumference). The
Alliance stated that the lack of uniformity in CRS attachment hardware
and its mounting location on the CRS points to the actual source of the
compatibility issue, rather than the vehicle ``swing zone'' behind the
seatback or head restraint. Similarly, Hyundai presented a 12 CRS
hardware length survey that found a range between 140 to 185 mm (5.5 to
7.3 inches). Hyundai stated that limiting the length of the tether
hardware assembly would not be overly burdensome for CRS manufacturers,
since that assembly consists of simple parts.
Britax recommended against adopting restrictive dimensional
requirements for tether hardware length (165 mm), as it might prevent
advancement in tether technologies, and against requiring child
restraint manufacturers to modify current tether hardware design.
Instead, Britax recommended that child restraint manufacturers simply
provide compatible tether hardware as the vehicle tether anchorage
dimensions are standardized.
Agency Decision
This final rule adopts a tether hardware length requirement of 165
mm or less as proposed by the NPRM. Most CRSs already comply with this
length and changing the tether hardware design in CRSs that currently
do not meet this requirement should not be burdensome, as there are
many tether hardware designs available that can meet the requirement.
Although Britax did not describe how a new tether
[[Page 1312]]
technology would not be able to comply with this requirement, any
hardware design with a longer distance than 165 mm could prevent tight
installations, and therefore, would not comply. Having this requirement
will also address the Alliance and FCA's suggestion to promote CRS
uniformity.
V-Shaped Tethers
Britax stated it has a patented tether technology which
incorporates, in part, a V-shaped tether assembly. Britax stated that
the V-shaped tether assembly would meet the proposed tether hardware
length requirement. In contrast, UMTRI stated that for V-shaped
tethers, the adjustment hardware is typically located a considerable
distance from the tether hook, so these tethers may not be able to
comply with the proposed requirement. UMTRI also stated that has had
had difficulties tightening the V-shaped tether in some Britax CRSs.
Agency Decision
Unlike common tethers that are usually routed directly from the
middle of the CRS back to the tether anchorage, a V-shaped tether is
routed from the two CRS attachments near the side of the CRS back to
the tether anchorage.\104\ A V-shaped tether would most likely have a
longer distance from each of the back/side attachment points to the
tether anchorage and would not have a head restraint interfering during
attachment, as it is routed on either side of the head restraint.
Factors outside the scope of the proposed requirements on tether
anchorage location and tether hardware length may be the cause of
difficulties in tightening V-shaped tether anchorages. However, any
potential solution is out of scope of this rulemaking and will thus not
be addressed by this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See details of attachment to the tether anchorage at
https://us.britax.com/why-britax/innovation/v-shaped-tether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Noticing the Tether Anchorages
1. Structures Covering Anchorages
The NPRM proposed to require that a tether anchorage must be in a
location where the anchorage is accessible without the need to remove
carpet or other vehicle components to access the anchorages. However,
the NPRM proposed that a tether anchorage may be covered with a cap,
flap, or cover, provided that the cap, flap, or cover is specifically
designed to be opened, moved aside, or otherwise provide access to the
anchorage. It must also be labeled with the ISO symbol indicating the
presence of the tether anchorage underneath. The NPRM also proposed to
require the anchorage to be accessible without the use of any tools,
including the use of a screwdriver or coin.
Covered Tether Anchorages
Dr. Baer strongly disagreed with the provision allowing for the
covering of tether anchorages with any cap/flap/cover, stating concerns
that parents do not notice these covers, because vehicle manufacturers
do a very good job of making the caps/flaps/covers blend in with their
surroundings. Dr. Baer stated that aesthetics of the vehicle need to
take a back seat to child safety, and that hiding of the CRAS has
directly contributed to the failure of CRAS to reduce misuse rates in
the population as a whole since so many parents never find the
anchorages in their vehicles.
Agency Response
The agency disagrees that tether anchorage covers should not be
allowed. Data from IIHS's study \105\ shows that the package shelf is
the tether anchorage location most widely used in the field. Tether
anchorage covers are most commonly used in package shelf locations and
are usually voluntarily labeled with the ISO tether symbol. Although
IIHS data does not provide details on whether the tether anchorages in
their study had covers or not, data in the IIHS study suggests that it
is not detrimental to have a labeled cover on the tether anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Jessica B. Cicchino, J.B., Jermakian, J.S. ``Vehicle
Characteristics Associated with LATCH Use and Correct Use in Real-
World Child Restraint Installations.'' April 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargo Covers
The Alliance stated that many SUVs, CUVs, and station wagon-type
vehicles are equipped with a luggage compartment cover. The Alliance
stated that some of these cover designs must be removed when access to
the tether anchorages is required, while others are retracted into
their own housing.\106\ The Alliance commented that the compartment
cover removal does not require any special tools and is, in most cases,
conducted with a simple twist, turn, and lift-up movement of the
hardware. The Alliance added that in some hatch-back and coupe style
vehicles, the package shelf may have to be moved/removed temporarily to
facilitate accessing the tether anchorages on the vehicle
seatback.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Illustration can be found on page 14 of Alliance comment
submission in Docket No. NHTSA2014-0123-0027. Link:
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
\107\ Illustration can be found on page 13 of Alliance comment
submission in Docket No. NHTSA2014-0123-0027. Link:
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance provided examples of a hatchback equipped with a
lightweight removable security cover hinged near the seatback on one
side and tethered to the rear hatch on the other side. The Alliance
explained that the cover is designed to be easily removed to transport
large cargo when the rear seat is folded flat and that the cover needs
to be temporarily lifted or removed to attach the tether to the tether
anchorage located on the vehicle structure. The Alliance added that
removing the cover is not an impediment to tethering the CRS and the
regulation should not prohibit manufacturers from providing the
security the covers provide. The Alliance stated that because these
compartment covers are easily removable and provide ready access to the
anchorages, they do not qualify as vehicle components as provided under
the proposed provision.
Global requested clarification on whether luggage room boards or
covers that are readily movable to gain access to the tether anchorage
are permitted under the proposal, and whether such covers must be
labeled.
Agency Response
After careful consideration, this final rule allows cargo covers to
be present if they do not need any tools for removal and are marked
with a tether marking for each tether anchorage available (i.e., if
there are three tether anchorages available under the cargo cover,
there should be three tether anchorage markings). As this cargo cover
could be removed or relocated away from the actual tether anchorage,
the anchorage must also be marked.\108\ The agency considered not
allowing the cargo cover feature, but the cargo cover is a component
that consumers would want to use in most cases to hide the cargo
whenever they do not need to access it from the rear seat. Also,
because the cargo cover does not have sufficient structural strength to
locate the tether anchorage on it, it would not be adequate for
installing tether anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Marking requirements are discussed in a later section of
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tether Anchorages Located Under the Fabric With Slit
SRN expressed concerns about some tether anchorages located on
vehicle seatbacks and hidden behind the seatback fabric. SRN explained
that although a scored slit in the fabric is provided for this design
(and in some cases, a tether anchorage marking may
[[Page 1313]]
even be nearby), it is consistently difficult for vehicle owners to
recognize how to access these type of tether anchorages. SRN explained
it is hard to see the slit in low light (such as in a garage) and
bewildering to owners that they would be required to perform this step.
SRN commented that, because this type of hidden tether anchorage
technically could meet the requirements of the proposal, wording should
be included in the standard that eliminates this design option and
makes exposing the tether anchorage part of the factory assembly
procedures.
Agency Response
In response to SRN's expressed concerns, the proposed requirements
that ``allow a cap, flap or cover that is specifically designed to be
opened, move aside or to otherwise give access to the anchorage'' would
not permit such slit access (unless it stays open by itself) because it
would not expose the tether anchorage without obstruction. However, in
acknowledgement of this concern and to provide greater clarity and
avoid any potential confusion, NHTSA is modifying this final rule's
regulatory text to ``allow a cap, flap or cover that is specifically
designed to be opened, move aside or to otherwise give unobstructed
access to the anchorage'' to more explicitly rule out slit designs.
Tether Anchorages Under Cargo Floor
Dr. Baer and SRN also commented on tether anchorages located below
the level of the cargo floor (e.g., in the Toyota Prius V), explaining
that when the second-row seating is rolled back to the regular
passenger seating position, the seatback abuts the cargo area floor,
and the tether anchorages are completely out of sight and inaccessible.
SRN recommended that NHTSA address the problem of tether anchorages
that are inaccessible in certain seating locations through an amendment
to FMVSS No. 225.
Agency Response
The proposed requirement to have tether anchorages in a location
available without the need to remove carpet or other vehicle components
to access the anchorages (except for caps, flap or covers designed to
provide access to the anchorage) adequately addresses the concerns
raised over anchorages positioned below the level of the cargo
floor.\109\ The agency considers an interfering cargo floor as a
vehicle component that is not providing access to the tether anchorage,
and therefore not meeting the intent of this requirement. However, as
discussed in the previous section, the agency will change the
regulatory text to ``otherwise give unobstructed access to the
anchorage'' to more explicitly rule out slit designs and obstructed
anchorages below the cargo floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See www.cars.com/articles/2014/02/2014-land-rover-range-rover-sport-top-tether-trouble-/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tether Strap Over Cargo Area
Dr. Baer stated that other tether anchorage locations include the
rear wall of the vehicle, which makes it impossible to put cargo in the
trunk area with a tether strap crossing over the cargo area. Dr. Baer
explained that when forced to decide between using a tether and having
room for cargo, most parents will choose the cargo and leave the car
seat untethered. Therefore, Dr. Baer disagreed with NHTSA's statement
that ``those atypical locations do not appear to pose a safety
problem.'' Dr. Baer added that while in the crash test lab a rear wall
tether anchorage is fine, in the real world it isn't practical and
simply doesn't get used.
Agency Response
Regarding Dr. Baer's comment on not allowing anchorages that
interfere with cargo space, this is out of the scope of this
rulemaking, as NHTSA did not propose any requirements on this topic or
how to evaluate interference with cargo.
2. Elimination of the Option To Use a Tool or Coin To Remove the
Anchorage Cover
The NPRM proposed that a tether anchorage must be in a location
where the anchorage is accessible without the need to remove carpet or
other vehicle components to access the anchorages. NHTSA also proposed
the anchorage must be accessible without the use of any tools,
including the use of a screwdriver or coin. NHTSA clarified that a
tether anchorage may be covered with a cap, flap, or cover, provided
that the cap, flap, or cover is specifically designed to be opened,
moved aside, or otherwise provide access to the anchorage, and it must
also be labeled with the ISO symbol indicting the presence of the
tether anchorage underneath.
Comments
Advocates expressed support for improving the regulation regarding
better access to tether anchorages, stating that currently tether
anchorages must be accessible without the need of any tool except a
screwdriver or coin and anchorages are frequently placed in a location
requiring consumers to fold back a seat or remove camouflage coverings
such as carpet, seat fabric, or a plastic cap. Advocates stated that
eliminating the need to use a screwdriver or coin to access a tether
anchorage is essential to make CRAS anchorages more user-friendly.
Advocates stated that CRAS anchorages intended for use by consumers
should be user-friendly, and their location should be readily apparent
when needed.
Agency Response
The agency received no comments in opposition to the proposed
requirement to require access to the tether anchorages without the use
of tools, including a screwdriver and coin. As the agency received
comments in support of this proposal and new vehicle models do not have
tether anchorages that require a screwdriver or a coin to access them,
eliminating this option is feasible, would incur no cost for vehicle
manufacturers, and would prevent such designs from coming back into the
fleet. As such, the agency is adopting the NPRM's proposal to require
access to tether anchorages without the use of tools, including a
screwdriver or coin. The agency will also adopt the NPRM's proposed
requirement that the tether anchorages must be accessible without the
need to remove carpet or other vehicle components to access the
anchorage (other than marked caps, flaps, or covers specifically
designed to be opened, moved aside, or to otherwise provide
unobstructed access to the anchorages). Marked cargo covers will also
be allowed as discussed in the previous section.
d. Recognizing the Tether Anchorages
1. Rigid Bar
Currently FMVSS No. 225 does not provide any material or
dimensional requirements for tether anchorages, other than specifying
that the tether anchorage must permit the attachment of a tether hook
meeting the configuration and geometry specified in figure 11 of
Standard No. 213. Most vehicle manufacturers use a metal bar design for
the tether anchorage. These metal bars vary in cross section shape;
some are round, and others are flat. However, a few pickup trucks and
MPVs provide a webbing loop as the tether anchorage that can also be
used as a router to loop the tether through it and attach to the tether
anchorage in an adjacent seat. The webbing loop is so different from
the conventional metal bar design that consumers have difficulty
identifying them as a router
[[Page 1314]]
and a tether anchorage.\110\ Also, in some cases, the webbing
anchorages need to be retrieved from another component such as a
foldable carpet flap that runs across the back seat. In certain cases,
the carpet flap needs to be folded back to find the webbing tether
anchorage and then the webbing needs to be pulled out via an object
such as a pencil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Klinich, K.D., Manary, M.A., Malik, L.A., Flannagan,
C.A.C. ``Tether Anchors in Pickup Trucks: Assessing Usability,
Labeling, and Performance'' November 2016. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/156027/UMTRI-2016-30.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To increase the ease-of-use of tether anchorages, NHTSA proposed
amending FMVSS No. 225 to standardize the configuration of the tether
anchorage such that it is a ``rigid bar of any cross-section shape.''
One of the main objectives of the proposal was to increase the
standardization of CRAS features, to increase consumers' familiarity
with the anchorage systems, and to increase the ease of using the
systems, particularly when coupled with education efforts that provide
a simple and uniform message. The NPRM stated its belief that having a
standardized design for the tether anchorages such that they can be
described as a ``rigid bar'' would help consumers easily recognize the
anchorages in their vehicles and facilitate simplified and more
effective messages in educational materials.
The NPRM requested comment on whether further standardization of
the tether anchorage should be pursued to make the tether anchorage a
more recognizable vehicle feature. The agency tentatively decided not
to specify dimensions for the tether anchorage to give manufacturers
some design flexibility in meeting FMVSS No. 225's strength
requirements.
General Comments
Three commenters (UMTRI, Advocates, and Dr. Baer) supported the
standardization of the tether anchorages to a rigid bar. UMTRI
specifically supported prohibiting the use of webbing as a vehicle
tether anchorage. Advocates commented that standardizing the tether
anchorage will allow consumers to identify the device and understand
its intended use more easily. Global supported NHTSA's approach in not
specifying the dimensions of tether anchorages, as this would provide
manufacturers design flexibility in meeting FMVSS No. 225 strength
requirements. Some commenters, including CR, GM, the Alliance, FCA, and
Global, expressed concern regarding eliminating the flexible anchorages
in certain vehicles. These concerns will be discussed in detail in the
following sections.
The Alliance stated that because the NPRM included the proposed
requirement for marking all tether anchorages with standardized
symbols, any further standardization is not necessary to make the
anchorages more recognizable. The Alliance further stated that there is
no data to substantiate that the proposed requirements standardizing
the configuration of the tether anchorages will increase consumers'
familiarity with the anchorage systems and will increase the ease of
using the systems, aside from facilitating simplified messages in
educational materials.
Agency Response
After careful consideration and review of comments received, NHTSA
is adopting the proposed requirements for tether anchorages designs to
be a ``rigid bar of any cross-section shape.'' However, this final rule
allows for some exceptions to this provision, which are discussed in
detail below.
2. Flexible Tether Anchorages for Pickup Trucks Versus Foldable Seats
Pickup Trucks
FCA commented that several proposed requirements within the NPRM
present technical feasibility concerns for pick-up trucks, as the
inherent architecture of a pick-up truck is such that the seats are
located near the rear of the occupant compartment with a glass window
directly behind the seat.\111\ FCA explained that taken together, the
proposals of the rigid bar requirement for tether anchorages,
accessibility without folding the seatback, and the minimum distance of
165 mm from the reference point ``SB,'' make the technical feasibility
of the design solution even more complex in pickup trucks, going
against the goal of the NPRM. FCA also stated that the tentative design
solutions to meet all the requirements proposed in the NPRM would not
increase usability of tether anchorage and would add unnecessary cost
and weight to the vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Illustration can be found on page 10 of FCA's Appendix A
submission in Docket No. NHTSA2014-0123-0025. Link:
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0123-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance stated that to meet the proposed requirements (rigid
tether anchorage, no folding of seat to access the tether anchorage,
and the minimum distance of 165 mm from the reference point ``SB'' to
the tether anchorage), manufacturers would have to include seat tracks
so that they can move the seat forward (instead of folding) to allow
access to the tether anchorage. Alliance added that currently the
standard allows for designs that provide a folding seat in the rear row
of a pickup to provide access to the tether anchorages.
GM stated it uses flexible tether anchorages made with steel cable
in conjunction with routers on many of its pickup truck models. GM and
the Alliance explained that the need to use routers will increase if
access to the tether anchor is no longer permitted by folding the
seatback.
Agency Response
After reviewing comments received regarding the standardization of
the tether anchorages as a rigid bar and the requirement for tether
anchorages to be accessible without folding the seat, the agency
believes flexible tether anchorages should be allowed in some types of
vehicles. The agency acknowledges that permitting flexible tether
anchorages in some vehicle types will not achieve the proposed
standardization of tether anchorages, but believes the design
challenges associated with adding tether anchorages on pickup trucks
and other vehicles where the tether anchorage cannot be installed
within the tether ``allowable zone'' in the required standard merits
allowing these vehicles the option of having flexible tether anchorages
(that can also be used as routing devices).
Using Flexible Tether Anchorages With Routers Versus Accessing Tether
Anchorages Behind Seatback
CR expressed concern about the elimination of the adjacent routing
option for tethers in pickup trucks. CR acknowledged that the adjacent
loop method of attaching the tethers in pickup trucks is different and
less intuitive than in most other vehicles; however, CR stated that
based on evaluations of tether anchorage access in pickups prior to the
availability of the adjacent routing technique, it was still a
preferable alternative to some of the more hidden tether anchorage
locations behind a folding seatback. CR stated these alternate
locations create a unique imbalance when installing a forward-facing
seat between holding the seat and accessing the tether anchorage.
Similarly, GM relayed feedback it received from child passenger
safety technicians (CPST) regarding the flexible cable tether anchorage
versus rigid anchorage located behind a folding seatback. Feedback
received stated that while it may take some familiarity or consultation
with the owner's manual,
[[Page 1315]]
once a user understands how to route and attach the tether using the
flexible routers it is easier to do than it is to fold the seat forward
to access a rigid anchorage on the back of the seat or cab wall, attach
the tether, fold the seatback upright, and then install the CRS and
tighten the tether strap. GM opined that it is no more complicated or
confusing to attach the tether hook to a flexible cable-type anchorage
than to a separate rigid anchorage in situations where use of a router
is required.
FCA \112\ submitted current designs with webbing straps, located
behind each seating position, that serve as both the tether strap
routing device and the tether anchorage. FCA explained that when a
child restraint is installed in a seating position, the tether strap
for the child restraint is routed through the routing device behind the
seating position in which the child restraint is installed and the
tether hook is then attached to the strap in the adjacent seating
position. FCA stated that it provides clear installation instructions
in the owner's manual to explain the correct child restraint
installation procedure and that due to the flexibility of the strap on
the vehicle, it is quite easy to attach the tether hook to the tether
anchorage. FCA pointed out that due to the proposed NPRM requirement
that the tether anchorage be a rigid bar, this design will no longer be
allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Illustration can be found on page 13 of FCA's Appendix A
submission in Docket No. NHTSA 2014-0123-0025. Link:
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0123-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
Following careful consideration of comments received, NHTSA agrees
with CU, GM, and FCA that flexible tether anchorages that can also be
used as routers are easier to use than tether anchorages located behind
a folding seatback. While the tethering method of looping the tether
strap through the routing device and attaching it to a tether anchorage
(also a routing device) of an adjacent seating position is not
intuitive at first, once the method is known it is easily understood
and easily performed. Therefore, flexible tether anchorages will
continue to be allowed in some vehicles.
Request To Allow Folding Seat To Access Tether Anchorage
Global requested that the agency allow the folding of seatbacks to
access the tether anchorage in pickup trucks where no practical
alternative exists to locate the tether anchorage.
The Alliance stated that packaging space in single row vehicles
(discussed in the next section) and in pickup trucks is often limited
and seats are often located near the rear of the occupant compartment.
The Alliance added that locations for tether anchorages are regulated
in the current FMVSS No. 225 and need to have suitable vehicle
structure to manage the forces of the child restraint in a crash. The
Alliance elaborated that one solution often found in sports coupes and
pickup trucks is to locate the tether anchorage on the vehicle body
where loads can be managed, behind the passenger seat.\113\ The
Alliance stated that access to the anchorage requires the seat to be
moved or tilted forward to attach the tether hook to the anchorage and
that once the hook is engaged, the seatback is moved backward to a
locked position and the tether strap is tightened. The Alliance
explained that, as currently proposed in the NPRM, the tether
anchorages would likely need to be relocated to the vehicle's body and
that the relocated anchorage would require the addition of a tether
routing loop behind the head restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Illustration can be found on page 11 of Alliance comment
submission in Docket No. NHTSA2014-0123-0027. Link:
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
The agency has decided not to allow seats to be folded to reach the
tether anchorages in pickup trucks because it is more difficult to
install a CRS using this method, as it may require an iterative
installation process to achieve the desired tight installation. Pickup
truck designs that require the vehicle seatback to be folded to access
the tether anchorages can be modified to include flexible tether
anchorages (that can be used as routing devices). Some of these pickup
designs may already have enough structure to handle the tether loads if
changed to a flexible tether anchorage design, although some may have
to be reinforced.
Based on comments and inspections performed by the agency, pickup
trucks that do not use the flexible tether anchor/routing device have a
foldable seatback that allows access to a rigid tether anchorage in the
seatback in the back wall or floor of the pickup. Additionally, in some
pickup trucks, depending on the design of the CRS tether hardware, the
hardware can prevent the seatback from latching, which could cause
consumers to not use the tether at all.
While the agency acknowledges Global and the Alliance's comments
that some pickup trucks should be permitted to have folding rear seats
to access anchorages, as no practical alternative exists to locate
them, we respectfully disagree with this view. Although certain pickup
trucks may require some modifications to meet the requirements of this
final rule, pickup trucks that have folding rear seats should be able
to accommodate the routing/tether anchorage design. Further, this
design should not interfere with vehicle models that have moving or
foldable backs to access other elements such as storage or tools.
Reduced Rear Seat Space if Other Solutions Are Not Allowed
FCA stated that because the NPRM proposal does not allow for
flexible tether anchorages and folding the seatback to access the
tether anchorage space behind the seat, accessible tether anchorages
would come at the expense of passenger space in the rear seat to meet
the proposed requirements. FCA stated that reducing the space behind
the front seat is counterproductive to the overall goal of fitting
children in child restraints in the back seat of vehicles, including
pickup trucks.
Agency Response
Since this final rule permits flexible anchorages and routers,
manufacturers should not have to choose to include seat tracks to move
the seat forward or to reduce the rear seat space to access the tether
anchorage without folding the seatback. We agree that reducing the rear
seat space to create an accessible tether anchorage would be
counterproductive to helping fit CRSs in the rear seat.
Conflicts With FMVSS No. 202
FCA stated that other regulations such as FMVSS No. 202a can be in
direct conflict with the changes proposed in the NPRM because they can
impede the access to the tether anchorage even further.\114\ FCA stated
the proposed rigid bar requirement for tether anchorages, accessibility
without folding the seatback, and the minimum distance of 165 mm from
the reference point SB make the technical feasibility of the design
solution even more complex, as the head restraint would block access to
the rigid tether anchorage and the head restraint could not be folded,
as the folding the seatback is assumed to not be allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Illustration can be found on page 12 of FCA's Appendix A
submission in Docket No. NHTSA2014-0123-0025. Link:
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0123-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
Continuing to allow the flexible anchorage with router design
should
[[Page 1316]]
eliminate the concerns expressed by FCA in relation to any potential
conflict with the new tether location requirements (see section above
VI.b.1), the restriction of folding the seatback to access the tether
anchorage, and having to place the tether anchorages in locations that
will allow tightening of the tether. The cost to implement the routing
device/tether anchorage designs should be low, as most pickup trucks
already have such designs. Further, per this final rule, flexible
anchorages and routers will be allowed in vehicles where no part of the
shaded tether anchorage zone in the standard is accessible without
folding the seat or removing a seating component of the vehicle (per
S6.2.1.1 of FMVSS No. 225). Head restraints will also be allowed to be
moved/folded or removed to provide better access to the anchorages.
Conflicts With Canadian Standard
The Alliance stated that if NHTSA revised S6.2(b)(1) as proposed it
would create a dilemma if CMVSS 210.1 is not similarly revised, since
most or all manufacturers of these vehicles also sell these vehicles in
Canada.
Agency Response
The requirements adopted by this final rule continue to allow
flexible tether anchorages with routers for vehicles that cannot locate
the tether anchorage in the ``allowed zone.'' Therefore, these
requirements do not conflict with Canada's standard.
Labeling Instead of Vehicle Modifications
The Alliance recommended NHTSA require a label on the top/side of
the seatback (facing toward the door) directing consumers to the
presence of the tether anchorage behind the seatback to prevent costly
vehicle modifications. The Alliance stated that this requirement would
allow tether anchorages to remain in relatively accessible and expected
locations in these vehicles.
Agency Response
NHTSA disagrees with the Alliance's suggestion to require a label
on the seatback to direct consumers to the tether anchorage behind the
seatback, as such a label would not solve the difficulties in
tightening the tether when it is located behind the seat, or the
inability to re-latch the seatback due to interference with certain CRS
tether hardware. NHTSA also does not have information on the
effectiveness of such a label, and it falls outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
3. Single Row Vehicles
FCA stated that packaging space in single row vehicles is very
limited, with seats often located near the rear of the occupant
compartment. FCA explained that because the location for the tether
anchorage needs to have a suitable structure to manage the forces in a
collision, tether anchorages are often located on the structure behind
the passenger seat. FCA added that access to such tether anchorage
requires the seatback to be moved or tilted forward to attach the
tether hook to the tether anchorage, and that once the hook is engaged,
the seat is returned to its normal driving position and the tether
strap is tightened.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Illustration can be found on page 9 of FCA's Appendix A
submission in Docket No. NHTSA2014-0123-0025. Link:
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0123-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCA described two of its single row vehicles, the Dodge Viper, and
the Alpha 4C, which require the user to fold the front passenger
seatback forward to gain access to the tether anchorage located on the
vehicle structure directly behind the passenger seat. FCA stated there
are limited engineering solutions available capable of withstanding the
forces required by FMVSS No. 225 in both vehicles, and recommended
NHTSA continue to allow the folding of the seatback to gain access to
tether anchorages installed in single row vehicles.
Agency Response
NHTSA disagrees with FCA's expressed concern regarding access of
tether anchorages for single row vehicles and this final rule will not
permit the folding of the seatback to access the tether anchorage.
Pickup trucks also have a challenging geometry and have been able to
accommodate tether anchorages with routing devices. NHTSA acknowledges
single row vehicles face similar challenges where no part of the shaded
tether anchorage zone in the standard is accessible without removing a
seating component of the vehicle or folding the seat-back forward.
However, as discussed earlier in this section, vehicles with these
characteristics will be allowed to accommodate routing devices to avoid
folding the seatback to access the tether anchorages. CRS installation
is easier using routing devices for attaching the tether-to-tether
anchorages than CRS installation involving folding the seatback to
access the tether anchorage, because such an installation would be an
iterative process for tightening the tether or, depending on the CRS
tether hardware design, could create a condition where the seatback
cannot be re-latched, resulting in consumers not using the tether at
all. As previously stated, this final rule will permit flexible
anchorages and routers in vehicles where no part of the shaded tether
anchorage zone in the standard is accessible without folding the seat
or removing a seating component of the vehicle. Further, head
restraints will be allowed to be moved/folded or removed to provide
better access to the anchorages. This allowance should alleviate the
aforementioned concerns raised by FCA.
4. Buses With a GVWR of 10,000 Pounds or Less
GM requested that buses under 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight
(i.e., 12 and 15 passenger vans) be exempt from the requirement that
the tether anchorages be a rigid bar. GM pointed out that school buses
are already exempt altogether from requirements to provide any tether
anchorages. GM explained that the 12-15 passenger van segment is a very
small (much less than 1 percent of total market sales) specialized
segment of vehicles which are typically driven by employees or
individuals affiliated with a business or organization. GM provided
figure 5 below showing the metal anchorage in these vehicles is
attached to a flexible strap which is bolted to the lower seat
structure. GM also noted that the seats in these vehicles have a single
seatback shared by 3 or 4 seating positions and that these seats are
already quite heavy and would become even heavier if additional
structures were added to it to handle CRS tether loading. GM explained
that today, as marked, these anchorages are readily recognizable and
easy to use. GM recommended allowing flexible strap tether anchorages
for bus applications.
[[Page 1317]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.030
Agency Response
NHTSA agrees that there is merit to GM's request to permit flexible
tether anchorages on buses with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds
or less. Requiring rigid anchorages in these types of vehicles may
increase the weight of the vehicle when adding structures for the rigid
anchorages. This is an important concern as vehicles are only required
to provide 3 tether anchorages, and added weight might deter
manufacturers from continuing to provide additional tether anchorages
in these types of vehicles. The agency will therefore exclude buses
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less from the requirement for rigid
tether anchorages.
VII. Conspicuity and Identification of Vehicle Anchorages and CRS
Connectors
NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 225 to require all vehicles to
bear the ISO standardized markings developed by ISO's voluntary
standard near all lower anchorages and tether anchorages provided in
the vehicle to improve the ease with which consumers find lower
anchorages and tether anchorages in the vehicle. The agency also
proposed requiring the same ISO markings on CRS lower anchorage
connectors and on tether hooks. The agency proposed that the lower
anchorage connector marks must be at least 9 mm (0.35 in) in diameter.
Further, the NPRM proposed that the markings on the tether anchorage
connector must be on the tether strap or a tag attached to the strap,
and that the marking must be located within one inch of the tether
hardware assembly (tether hook and adjustment hardware). The proposal
also stipulated that the tether anchorage connector markings must be at
least 8 mm (0.35 in) in height.
NHTSA also proposed that both vehicle and CRS manufacturers must
include an explanation of the meaning of the markings in the vehicle
manual to make consumers more aware of the existence of CRASs and to
facilitate consumer education efforts by simplifying education
messages. Currently, the ISO voluntary standard has two different
tether anchorage symbols and under the agency's proposal CRS
manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers would have the option of using
either marking.
a. General Comments and Agency Responses
1. General Support for Markings and Manuals Requirements for Vehicle
and CRSs
Several commenters expressed support for the proposed standardized
ISO markings on all child restraint anchorages and the child restraint
anchorage connectors. Two commenters, IIHS and Dorel, also stated they
supported the proposed language requirements for the vehicle and child
restraints manuals. IIHS and Dr. Baer agreed that the standardized
symbols and presence of markings will help simplify educational
messaging to parents.
Britax commented that consumers are reluctant to review vehicle
owner's manuals to determine tether anchorage locations and that they
have witnessed consumers attaching the tether to non-tether anchorage
points. Britax further stated that making vehicle tether anchorages
more visible and consistently marked should improve and encourage
tether usage. Similarly, Advocates stated that a common error in
properly installing a CRS is the attachment of the tether to a device
that is in fact not a tether anchorage. Advocates explained that
requiring a standard symbol at the location of each tether anchorage,
regardless of whether the anchorage is visible, will assist consumers
in not only properly installing a CRS but increasing awareness of the
existence of these devices. Advocates commented that instituting
uniformity in markings by requiring a standard symbol already used by
the International Standardization Organization (ISO) and adopted by a
majority of vehicle manufacturers will further assist consumers in
identifying both the lower anchorages and tether anchorages.
Agency Response
Following review of comments received, the agency has decided to
adopt the proposed lower anchorage and tether anchorage markings, as
well as the proposed markings for CRS lower anchorage connectors and
tethers. The agency received widespread support for the markings,
although some commenters had concerns with the restrictive locations of
the markings with respect to the anchorages, the symbols required, and
some vehicles that have specific challenges such as pickups and
hatchbacks that may have an open trunk. The following section further
discusses the issues raised by the commenters regarding the proposed
requirements for anchorage marking location and design, NHTSA's
decision on the issues, and the final rule requirements.
2. Marking Contrast and Color Coding
IIHS and Dr. Baer supported the proposed improved labeling to
identify tether anchorages but stated that a color contrast requirement
for the label should be incorporated in the standard. IIHS stated that
labeling itself was not associated with tether use in its study,\116\
explaining that this result may be because the embossed labels that are
[[Page 1318]]
frequently used are often difficult to see. Similarly, SRN and Dr. Baer
stated that some tether anchorage markings currently in vehicles are
extremely difficult to see, even in daylight conditions, because the
marks are engraved into dark plastic. SRN stated that the tether
anchorage markings will only accomplish the intended goal if they are
easily visible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Jermakian J.S., Klinich K.D., Orton N.R., Flannagan
C.A.C., Manary M.A., Malik L.A., Narayanaswamy P. 2014. Factors
affecting tether use and correct use in child restraint
installations. J Safety Res 51:99-108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates stated that during the 2007 public meeting they urged
NHTSA to require all tethers anchorages and lower anchorages to be
conspicuously marked. Advocates added that the 2006 Decina study,
supra, revealed that the majority of consumers who did not use lower
anchorages (55 percent) reported that they did not use them partly
because they could not find them or did not know where they were
located in the vehicle. Advocates stated that while it would be optimal
to have all persons who install add-on CRSs be fully acquainted with
the FMVSS No. 225 CRAS, a portion (if not a majority) of the public
will not be fully conversant and informed regarding the CRAS. Advocates
stated that requiring anchorages and connectors that are color-coded or
otherwise conspicuous, and that obviously match the CRS anchorages or
connectors, is one way to provide intuitive cues that can lead to
increased rates of proper installation even among those members of the
public who are not fully conversant with technical details and
requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Dr. Baer supported the markings on CRS
lower connectors and tethers but suggested that vehicle and CRS
manufacturers should be required to use a specific color on the symbol
to help parents match the colors in addition to the symbol.
Graco requested clarification on (1) whether the proposed marking
on the CRS lower anchorage and tether anchorage connectors can be
embossed or engraved (i.e., molded in plastic or stamped in steel), (2)
whether the required markings can, but do not have to be, color
contrasting, (3) whether the pictogram for lower anchorages can be on a
tag or if it must be in the connector, and (4) whether the pictogram on
figure 16 in the NPRM is permitted on an attached tag that is located
25 mm, measured from the shortest distance from the nearest edge of the
pictogram, to the tether hardware. Dorel agreed that if the marking is
on the tether strap or a tag attached to the strap, the marking must be
located within one inch of the tether hardware assembly (tether hook
and adjustment hardware).
Agency Response
NHTSA acknowledges the suggestion raised by several commenters that
the proposed vehicle markings should have contrast or even color
coding. However, the agency is declining to include color coding
requirements in the markings for this final rule, as this specific
issue is outside of the scope of this final rule since the NPRM did not
propose any color contrast or color coding on the markings. Further,
NHTSA does not have data on the incremental benefit of having contrast
and/or color coding in the markings; this determination would require
evaluation of whether contrast/color markings result in more correct
installations than markings without color contrast. However, NHTSA
encourages manufacturers to make the markings as visible as possible,
including via contrast and/or color to further improve the usability of
the equipment. Similarly, the CRS connectors will not be required, but
will be allowed, to have color contrast.
For the markings on the CRS connectors, Graco requested
clarification on whether the proposed marking on the CRS lower
anchorage and tether anchorage connectors may be embossed or engraved
(i.e., molded in plastic or stamped in steel). The proposed FMVSS No.
225 does not have any requirements on how the marking is fabricated;
therefore, molded plastic, stamped in steel, and other methods are
allowed as long as the location and size of the required marking
requirements are met. As certain methods of marking could be applied to
webbing, manufacturers are reminded that component requirements of
FMVSS No. 213, e.g., webbing breaking strength,\117\ are subject to
compliance testing with the marking included, if it is present on the
sample to be tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ FMVSS No. 209, S5.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, although the proposal did not explicitly permit the lower
anchorage connector mark to be on a tag, the option of having the
marking on the connector itself or a tag located 25 mm (similar to the
proposal for the tether anchorage connector tag) from the connector is
beneficial, as some connectors (hook-type) may have more difficulties
accommodating the symbol. As such, in response to Graco's comment,
NHTSA is permitting the pictogram to be located on a tag that is 25 mm
from the connector. This measurement will be made from the nearest part
of the connector (plastic/metal part not webbing) to the tag with the
tether symbol.
b. Lower Anchorage Marking Comments and Agency Responses
1. Lower Anchorages I-Size, ISOFIX and Other Text in Symbols
MEMA urged NHTSA to consider allowing the use of other existing
marking designs used in ISOFIX and i-Size labels (figure 6), which are
widely used in the industry in many markets. MEMA explained that
consistency of markings is critical for its global company members that
supply to global vehicle manufacturers. MEMA added that the small
differences between the agency's proposed markings and those already in
use would result in redesigning and changing component production to
feature the different symbols, which adds cost and burden for
manufacturers.
MEMA added that, depending on the overall design, the surrounding
shape of the symbol may not always take the form of a circle or sphere.
Although the agency did not propose any changes to the marking shape
language in the current standard, MEMA suggested the agency consider
permitting other shapes to enclose the symbol as the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) regulations do permit ISO or iSize
symbols/labels. Similarly, the Alliance stated that parts of ECE
Regulation 44 \118\ are incorporated into the new UN R-129 \119\ with
new size and functional performance criteria, and that the new CRS will
be marked as i-size-ready. The Alliance explained that in order to
guarantee the fitment of these CRSs in the vehicle, original equipment
manufacturers must fulfill requirements in addition to those currently
in ECE R14 and R16. The Alliance added that if seating positions
fulfill the new i-Size option of ECE R14 and R16, they may be marked as
an ``i-Size seating position'' with the i-size-symbol (square)
replacing the ISO-symbol (round). MEMA urged NHTSA to clarify the
marking location to allow the symbol to appear within other shapes, and
to consider harmonization with ECE label requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ ECE R.44, ``Restraining devices for child occupants of
power driven vehicles (Child restraint systems),'' www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2015/r44r3e.pdf.
\119\ ECE R.129, ``Uniform provisions concerning the approval of
enhanced child restraint systems used on board vehicles (ECRS),''
www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R129e.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1319]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.031
MEMA added that NHTSA's proposed language appears to only allow for
the use of a single symbol as depicted in the NPRM, which is a much
narrower requirement than the current regulation that allows for words,
symbols, and pictograms. MEMA raises this issue because the ISO
standard symbol, in some cases, may include the term ``ISOFIX'' or
``i'' near the symbol. MEMA urged NHTSA to allow text to be either
inside or adjacent to the ISO standard pictogram symbol (indicating
such allowances in the notes associated with the attributed figure/
symbol) and to consider harmonization with ECE label requirements.
The Alliance stated that one element of the i-Size option in
European regulation (ECE R14 and R16) is the support leg installation
assessment. The Alliance relayed that some rear-facing infant child
restraints have introduced this feature and more, (including forward-
facing restraints) may follow as the newly proposed FMVSS No. 213 side
impact requirements \120\ become effective. The Alliance stated that
vehicle manufacturers have already received questions regarding the use
of these types of seats for installation purposes and that a vehicle
manufacturer could potentially indicate, with the placement of the new
square symbol, that its floor design will uphold use of a support leg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ The proposed FMVSS No. 213 side impact protection was
later adopted as FMVSS No. 213a- Side Impact Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance added that when comparing both ISO and i-Size symbols,
the i-Size symbol could even encourage the user to check the owner's
manual since ``I,'' in general ISO terms, is the symbol for
``information.'' The Alliance suggested that as long as the symbol's
meaning is explained in the owner's manual, either the ISO or i-Size
symbols should be permitted to identify the lower anchorages in the
vehicle.
Agency Response
MEMA and the Alliance requested allowing both the ``i-size''
marking and the ISO lower anchorage marking, as they are very similar
(instead of a circle, the ``i-size'' marking is a rounded square and
has a letter ``i'' in the marking), and that doing so would help
harmonization efforts. The Alliance stated that if the vehicle had an
``i-size'' symbol the consumer would be able to recognize vehicles
where they can use CRSs with support legs or that the ``i'' could be
used as an ``information'' icon so that the consumer looks in the
vehicle's manual.
Following careful consideration, this final rule does not allow for
the use of the i-size marking. Since ``i-size'' requirements are not in
U.S. standards, the U.S. cannot verify that anchorages marked with the
``i-size'' symbol meet the corresponding European ``i-size''
requirements. This means that NHTSA could not ensure that the vehicle
would accommodate a CRS with a support leg. Further, the agency could
not ensure that vehicle manufacturers would consistently use an ``i-
size'' symbol only when vehicles do meet the European ``i-size''
requirements. NHTSA is also not persuaded that the ``i'' in ``i-size''
could be used as an information icon, which would be inconsistent with
the meaning of ''i-size''.
This final rule does allow the term ``ISOFIX'' to be displayed
near, but not instead of, the new required symbol. This is because the
ISOFIX standard is more aligned with U.S. standards and the term has
been used for the lower anchorages in the U.S. market for many years.
2. Lower Anchorage Markings Tolerances
MEMA stated that adding markings to visible lower anchorages may
require trim design changes and redesign to meet the proposed
requirements. MEMA commented that seat designs with a visible lower
anchorage would not be able to accommodate a marking placed in the
existing 50 mm zone. MEMA explained that because some seat designs have
trim seams running vertically through the 50 mm zone, the button
markings are offset from the seams, making it challenging to have the
marking within the compliance zone.
MEMA added that other designs have the seat[hyphen]cushion bight
line within the marking zone, making it difficult to package the
marking and meet the proposed dimensional capability. MEMA stated that
the industry solution for this difficulty has been to make the lower
anchorage wire visible.
MEMA stated the proposed requirement to add markings to visible
lower anchorages may not have a safety implication, but might have a
quality implication on the trim. Thus, MEMA urged NHTSA to reconsider
the need to mark visible lower anchorage wires. In the alternative, at
minimum, MEMA requested that NHTSA expand the compliance zone
dimensions to accommodate seat trim design elements. MEMA recommended
increasing the lower anchorages' vertical zone to 25 to 125 mm and the
horizontal zone to 50 mm from the centerline of the wire.
MEMA stated that these increased tolerances will help marking
visibility, keep the marking within compliance, and avoid potential
redesign of seating function/design elements. MEMA also requested
clarification on S9.5(a) of the current regulation, which reads:
``Above each bar installed pursuant to S4, the vehicle shall be
permanently marked with a circle.'' MEMA asked for clarification on the
``above,'' as there are cases where the latch wires are positioned
higher than at the seat bight, meaning that the label may not be
situated above the latch wire, but in front of it.
SRN agreed with the proposals related to the ability to identify
anchorages and recommended a requirement that the lower anchorage
markings be placed on the vehicle seatback cushion in an area above the
lower anchorages. SRN explained that this recommendation would allow
for consistent usage verbiage to describe searching below the mark. SRN
added that although nearly all current markings comply with this
suggestion, there are exceptions in which the marking is placed below
the lower anchorage bar on the vehicle seat cushion.
Agency Response
The agency disagrees that markings should not be required for
visible anchorages, which would not accomplish the standardization the
agency is seeking. The current standard allows for the marking of the
lower anchorages to be on a tag, and
[[Page 1320]]
manufacturers could use this method if vertical seams do not allow for
the positioning of a button-type marking centered 25 mm
with the anchorage. The agency also disagrees with the suggestion that
the standard should increase the allowable vertical zone for the
marking from 50-100 mm to 25-125 mm and the horizontal zone from +100
mm (forward) to 50 mm. Specifically, a 25 mm (vertical)
distance above the lower anchorages may be too small, as the contour of
the seat may position the marking downwards, making it difficult for a
customer to see. Additionally, a 125 mm distance may be too far away
from the lower anchorage to be able to identify the correct equipment.
However, NHTSA does agree that the horizontal zone should be expanded
to accommodate seat contours where the marking would be positioned
behind the anchorage when a visible anchorage is more forward.
Therefore, NHTSA is expanding the allowable horizontal zone for marking
from +100 to -50 mm (see figure 7) for this final rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.032
Given the additional lead time provided by this final rule,
manufacturers should be able to make any necessary adjustments to their
trim design to enable them to always have the lower anchorage marking
above the lower anchorage in all vehicles, whether they are visible or
not.
In response to the request for clarification on S9.5.1(a), NHTSA
agrees that the word ``above'' could cause confusion, as S9.5(a)(3)
specifies the allowable location of the marking which can be above, or
in front of, the lower anchorage. Therefore, this final rule will
delete the word ``Above'' from section S9.5.1(a) to avoid any
confusion.
In response to the comment that the lower anchorages' markings
should be placed above the lower anchorages based on SRN's finding that
while most vehicles have the marking above, some manufacturers place it
below the lower anchorage bar, NHTSA points out that the current FMVSS
No. 225 requires the marking to be on the seatback area between 50 and
100 mm above the anchorage or on the seat cushion 100 25 mm
forward, as illustrated in figure 22 of FMVSS No. 225 (which will be
slightly changed to accommodate visible lower anchorages in this final
rule). The marking also must be centered with the center of the bar
(25 mm). Given differences in seat, anchorage, and seat
designs, we believe having the marking centered with the anchorages
along the seatback or seat cushion is sufficient to identify the lower
anchorage. Additionally, as the agency did not propose removing the
already allowed area for the marking on the seat cushion, additional
restrictions on this area would be outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
3. Lower Anchorage Tag With Weight Limit
Britax suggested that the agency consider requiring
``acknowledgment'' of the load limits of the lower anchorages with a
flag tag or vehicle seat label consistent with the recent revisions to
FMVSS No. 213, which restricts use of the lower anchorages to the child
weight limit of 29.5 kg (65 lb) minus the CRS weight. Britax explained
that currently this weight restriction is indicated on labels on the
child restraint, but that also providing lower anchorage flag tags or
vehicle seat labels instructing the consumer to check their vehicle
owner's manual would reduce the opportunity for misuse and remind
consumers that the use of lower anchorages is weight limited.
Agency Response
NHTSA does not believe requiring a label with a weight limit
identified on the lower anchorage markings will help consumers or
promote ease-of-use, as the child weight limit required on the CRS
label is specific to each CRS. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers cannot
calculate the child weight limit specific to each CRS to use with the
lower anchorages to install a CRS. In fact, a label on the lower
anchorages with the combined allowable weight of the CRS and child
could confuse the consumer, because they would have to determine the
CRS weight, calculate the allowable child weight, and then compare it
to the CRS label, which may not match in many cases. As such, this
final rule will not require a label with a weight limit identified on
the lower anchorage markings.
4. Tether Anchorage and Connector Marking Size Height vs. Diameter
MEMA commented that the reference to the figure 25 pictogram in the
NPRM indicated that the tether anchorage cannot be less than 20 mm in
diameter, but pointed out that the figure itself actually shows a
height of 20 mm, rather than a diameter. MEMA expressed concern that
the 20 mm diameter on the tether anchorage may not include the entire
pictogram for some applications (depending on the function/design of
the tether anchorage component); therefore, MEMA urged NHTSA to revise
the regulatory text to refer to a height, rather than a diameter.
Similarly, Global, GM, and the Alliance stated that given the
manner in which the pictogram measurement is shown in figure 25 of the
proposed
[[Page 1321]]
regulatory text, along with the irregular shape of the pictogram, the
20 mm criterion can more appropriately be described as ``height,''
rather than ``diameter.'' Finally, the Alliance stated that the
``circle'' referred to in the last line of 9.5.2(b) means a ``symbol''
in figure 25, and should be referenced as such in the regulatory text.
Agency Response
NHTSA agrees with the aforementioned comments expressing concerns
over the reference to the diameter, rather than the height, in relation
to figure 25 of the NPRM, and is correcting the proposed regulatory
text in response to these comments. As such, this final rule will state
that the tether anchorage marking cannot be less than 20 mm in height.
NHTSA also agrees with the Alliance's statement that the ``circle''
referred to in the last line of 9.5.2(b) means a ``symbol'' in figure
25 of the NPRM, and this final rule will reference the marking as a
symbol instead of a circle for clarification purposes.
c. Tether Anchorage and Connector Marking Comments and Agency Responses
Tether Anchorage and Connector ISO Symbols
In response to the proposal to use either of the two ISO symbols to
mark child restraint tether anchorages and connectors, Dorel commented
that with the introduction of CRASs it adopted the same standardized
ISO symbol marking of child restraint anchorage connectors to harmonize
and improve the ease-of-use of CRASs. Dorel added that child restraint
manufacturers would have the option of using either marking. The
Alliance stated that either of two ISO labeling tether symbols may be
used.
In contrast, SRN and UMTRI stated it would be better to choose a
single ISO tether anchorage symbol to mark the tether anchorages and
connectors to reduce any confusion that may arise from the different
symbols. SRN stated it was unaware of the original reason for ISO
developing two similar symbols or whether having two symbols serves an
ongoing purpose. SRN also stated that the two designs do not have a
purposeful difference.
Agency Response
The agency received comments in support of and in opposition to
standardizing the two tether anchorage markings currently available in
the ISO standard (figure 8). NHTSA believes the symbols are
sufficiently similar for consumers to recognize either of them;
therefore, the agency will allow either ISO symbol to be used, rather
than selecting only one permitted symbol for use. Although the agency
has not done an analysis on whether one symbol is more easily
understood by consumers than the other, given the extremely similar
nature of the symbols, the agency believes either symbol will provide
sufficient identification for ease-of-access for consumers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.033
d. Tether Anchorage Marking Comments and Agency Responses
1. Whether the Tether Anchorage and Tether Anchorage Cover Marking
Location Is Too Restrictive
The Alliance, MEMA, and Global expressed several concerns regarding
the NPRM's proposed requirements on the tether anchorage and tether
anchorage cover marking location. The Alliance did not support the
proposed requirement to locate the tether anchorage symbol a distance
no farther than 25 mm from the center of the anchorage for uncovered
anchorages. The Alliance stated that NHTSA provided no explanation for
the basis of selecting 25 mm for tether anchorage labeling. The
Alliance further stated that markings for tether anchorages in current
vehicles can be located much farther away at either 50-100 mm above or
25-100 mm in front of the anchorage bars while still being easily
recognizable.\121\ The Alliance pointed out that some current vehicles
that have easily recognizable anchorage markings would not meet the
proposed marking requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ As illustrated in figure 17 of the Alliance comments in
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. Link: www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance explained that for these vehicles the distance from
the anchorage bar to the edge of the recess well is 35 mm, and the
distance to the symbol is 38 mm. As such, to meet the maximum proposed
25 mm distance, the clearance provided by the plastic bezel would need
to be shortened by 13 to 22 mm, making it more difficult for consumers
to attach and detach the tether hook. The Alliance stated that this
requirement would reduce ease-of-use, producing the exact opposite
effect that the NPRM is attempting to accomplish.
The Alliance also requested clarification on how ring style tether
anchorages \122\ would be handled under the proposed requirements. The
Alliance stated that type of anchorage is well marked, but where the
tether hook attaches to the anchorage is 38 mm from the symbol. The
Alliance added that to meet the 25 mm requirement, the size of the ring
would need to be decreased to 25 mm and that such a modification is
unnecessary and would make the anchorage less easy to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ As illustrated in figure 18 of the Alliance comments in
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. Link: www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, MEMA stated that the 25 mm distance is too constrained
for current standard production components. MEMA explained that,
depending on the functional design size
[[Page 1322]]
of the component piece that surrounds the tether bar, such a tolerance
could place the mark either on the edges or in the interior of the bar
and its surrounding component. MEMA added that not only is it difficult
to achieve such a marking (under typical molding and manufacturing
processes), but that it could also potentially obscure the marking and
impact visibility, thus defeating the agency's goal to improve
conspicuity. Further, MEMA commented that the proposed 25 mm dimension
tolerance may force redesign of tether hook components, which could
impact the surrounding opening of the tether bar, thus making
attachment of the tether hook more difficult. MEMA explained that under
that scenario, NHTSA's goal to improve usability would be defeated;
therefore, to properly mark the component containing the tether bar/
hook attachment without forcing redesign of the component fascia or
function, MEMA urged NHTSA to increase the compliance marking zone
dimension to at least 50 mm.
The Alliance stated that the proposed requirement to have the
center of the symbol aligned with the center of the anchorage length to
a tolerance of [hairsp]5 mm is unnecessarily restrictive.
The Alliance explained that a 5 mm tolerance from the centerline is
either not practicable, given current seat labeling and construction
manufacturing processes, or unnecessary to achieve the agency's stated
goal. In making these statements the Alliance referenced its comments
and petitions for reconsideration to the original CRAS rulemaking,
documenting practicability limitations.\123\ The Alliance recommended
that the tolerance for tether anchorage markings be 25 mm,
consistent with the requirements for lower anchorage markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ June 2, 2000, NHTSA-1999-6160-0022 (p3-5), August 11,
2003, NHTSA-2003-15438-0005 (p3-4), and March 24, 2004, NHTSA-2003-
15438-0011 (p2 and attachments C and D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance also commented that for some designs it is very
difficult or impossible to include a tether anchorage marking that
complies with the proposed requirements in section 9.5.2.\124\ The
Alliance explained that some tether anchorages have recessed plastics
from which the anchorage protrudes and that although the mark does not
fall within 25 mm of the center of the anchorages, those tether
anchorages' marks are clear and visible to the consumer. The Alliance
suggested that tether anchorage marking locations be allowed in both
the longitudinal and lateral directions from the anchorage. Similarly,
Global explained that in some cases there may be no practical location
meeting the centerline and 25 mm anchorage bar-pictogram distance
criteria. Global urged the agency to establish less stringent criteria
to allow for variations in vehicle interior architecture. Global also
explained that the more detailed specification could be impractical for
some vehicle designs, and stated that manufacturers have every
incentive to ensure that the pictogram is located in a manner that is
not confusing to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ As illustrated in figure 19 of the Alliance comments in
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. Link: www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
Regarding the location of the tether anchorages markings, we agree
that the proposed distance from the anchorages to the symbol is too
restrictive and that in some cases it could make the tether anchorage
shorter while also making it more difficult to use. NHTSA also
acknowledges comments presenting examples of markings that were more
than 25 mm away from the anchorage while still clearly identifying the
tether anchorage as such. In response to these comments, NHTSA agrees
that a distance of 100 mm is reasonable; however, the agency will also
require that no other anchorage (cargo tie down or similar) or
structure that could be confused with an anchorage be closer to the
tether anchorage marking than the corresponding tether anchorage
(figure 9). This requirement will ensure that the markings clearly
identify the corresponding tether anchorages, while giving
manufacturers more flexibility to position the markings. NHTSA believes
that 100 mm is a reasonable distance, as it is still within the current
lower anchorage location marking distance range.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.034
Further, NHTSA acknowledges comments made by the Alliance and MEMA
relating to the restrictive tolerances proposed for the centering of
tether anchorage markings with a 5 mm tolerance; however,
we disagree with the suggestion of a 25 mm tolerance.
Unlike lower anchorages, tether anchorages do not have a required
minimum length of 25 mm. Therefore, as some tether anchorages can be
quite narrow in design, a 25 mm tolerance would allow a
marking located completely to the side of the tether anchorage, which
may cause confusion.
[[Page 1323]]
This final rule will instead have the tether anchorage marking
centerline intersect the tether anchorage along the tether anchorage's
length (figure 10). This requirement will ensure that the tether
anchorage marking centerline crosses the length of the tether
anchorage. It will also give the manufacturer the flexibility to choose
an anchorage width and a tether symbol size that suits their
manufacturing needs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.035
The agency also agrees with the Alliance that in some cases it
would be difficult to align the tether anchorage marking to the width
of the tether anchorage. However, NHTSA would like to keep some
consistency on the location of the markings to easily guide the
consumer to the tether anchorage. Therefore, NHTSA will also allow
locating the tether anchorage marking to the sides of the anchorage.
Per this final rule's requirements, half of the height of the marking
must overlap/intersect the tether anchorage, as shown below in figure
11. Manufacturers may choose a larger symbol size (with a minimum
height of 20 mm) that gives them the flexibility to meet this
requirement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.036
[[Page 1324]]
Finally, the agency agrees with comments stating that the NPRM's
proposed alignment and tolerances of the marking on the tether
anchorage cover would create an unnecessarily restrictive and
impractical requirement, as consumers will still understand that what
is under the cover is a tether anchorage even without these rigid
requirements. Such manufacturing precision would thus be an unnecessary
and increased burden on manufacturers. As such, this final rule will
still require the proposed marking on the tether anchorage cover but
will not specify the alignment and tolerances of the marking location.
3. Tether Anchorage Markings in Cargo Covers
As discussed earlier in this final rule, NHTSA will allow the
presence of cargo covers as long as they do not need any tools for
removal. In addition to the markings by the tether anchorages, cargo
covers will have to be marked with a tether symbol for each tether
anchorage available below the cargo cover.
There will be no requirements on the location of the marking on the
cargo cover, as the location of the cargo cover with respect to the
anchorage is varied. Manufacturers should indicate in their instruction
manuals how to access the tether anchorages. Tether anchorages under
the cargo cover will also need to be marked with the ISO symbols
adopted in this standard.
2. Tether Anchorage Markings for Routing Devices
Global suggested that FMVSS No. 225 should require a separate label
for tether routing devices to assist consumers in proper routing of the
tether strap. Global further suggested that a different symbol than the
proposed tether anchorage symbol should be used for tether routing
devices to avoid consumer confusion.
The Alliance stated that given the proposed requirements for rigid
anchorages in pickups for use in conjunction with routers, it is
unclear whether the marking requirements can be met. The Alliance
stated that the location of the marking may not be visible or help
consumers readily identify and locate the correct tether anchorage for
the corresponding seating position. Similarly, Global suggested a
separate label for tether routing devices and/or use of a different
tether symbol to avoid consumer confusion.
Agency Response
NHTSA disagrees with comments suggesting that FMVSS No. 225 should
require a separate label for tether routing devices to assist consumers
in proper routing of the tether strap and disagrees that a different
symbol than the proposed tether anchorage symbol should be used to
avoid consumer confusion. Specifically, we disagree that there is a
need to provide a different label and symbol for pickup trucks, as part
of the effort of this rulemaking is to standardize markings and
features to help develop simple educational efforts. NHTSA has reached
this decision after careful consideration of comments received and the
findings of a UMTRI research study,\125\ which showed that using
different labeling strategies to identify and guide users to the tether
anchorages had no effect on tether use, attaching the tether to the
correct anchorage, or correct tether use. NHTSA does recognize the
unique aspects of pickup trucks, and believes that standardizing tether
markings, paired with instructions in user manuals and education
outreach efforts, will help improve current levels of correct tether
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Klinich, Kathleen D., Manary, Miriam A., Malik, Laura M.,
Flannagan, Carol A.C. ``Tether Anchors in Pickup Trucks: Assessing
Usability, Labeling and performance''. UMTRI-2016-30. November 2016.
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/156027/UMTRI-2016-30.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to concerns regarding difficulty meeting the proposed
marking requirements for rigid anchorages in pickup trucks in
conjunction with routers in pickup trucks, as discussed previously,
this final rule allows for the use of flexible tether anchorages that
may also be used as routers.
NHTSA also recognizes that tether anchorages in pickup trucks may
not be visible unless the consumer looks for them behind the head
restraint. Notwithstanding this issue, the agency believes the tether
markings required by this final rule are warranted both for
standardization purposes and consumer awareness. However, given the
expressed concerns over the unique designs of some pickup trucks, if a
marking cannot be positioned within the allowed distances of this final
rule, NHTSA will permit its placement on the flexible routing/tether
anchorage device with a tag, or for the marking to be positioned within
100 mm of the anchorage.
4. Differences in the NPRM's Tether Symbol in Tether Anchorage Marking
Location (No Cover and With Cover) Figures and the ISO Symbol
MEMA and the Alliance stated that figures 26 and 27 referenced in
the proposed regulatory text (figure 12) depict a different pictogram
than the proposed ISO Tether Symbol inside a label and that the
pictogram is not referenced elsewhere. MEMA requested clarification on
this issue and asked that NHTSA use consistent pictograms in all of its
figures in the regulation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.037
[[Page 1325]]
Agency Response
The agency is making changes to the pictograms so that they match
the ISO standardized markings to avoid any confusion.
VIII. Applying FMVSS No. 225 to Vehicles Currently Excluded From FMVSS
No. 225
The 2015 NPRM requested comments on the feasibility of installing
tether anchorages in convertibles, as FMVSS No. 225 currently excludes
convertibles from having to provide tether anchorages in rear seating
positions (see S5(a) of FMVSS No. 225). The NPRM proposed deleting the
tether anchorage exclusion for convertible vehicles because several
convertible model vehicles have demonstrated that they can accommodate
them. Specifically, the agency found that among 35 convertible vehicle
models from the 2013 vehicle fleet, 10 were equipped with the full CRAS
(lower anchorages and tether anchorage) in two rear DSPs, 14 were
equipped with only the lower anchorages at two rear DSPs, and 11 were
not equipped with any anchorages.
NHTSA also requested comment on whether the exclusion of lower
anchorages in rear designated seating positions where interference with
the transmission and/or suspension components prevent the location of
the CRAS lower anchorages anywhere within specified zones (S5(e) of
FMVSS No. 225) is still needed. NHTSA explained that manufacturers have
gained experience in designing and installing vehicle seats with lower
anchorages since the issuance of FMVSS No. 225. The 2015 NPRM
tentatively determined there is no longer a need for S5(e) and proposed
deleting it. NHTSA requested comment on why the technical problems that
existed at the time of the implementation of the final rule in 1997
could not be overcome by the knowledge gained since 1997 and on the
feasibility of installing tether anchorages in the second row of
convertibles, and in the first row in convertibles that do not have a
second row.
Comments
Several commenters supported removing the exclusion of CRASs on
convertibles, with some pointing out that manufacturers have had many
years of experience installing CRASs in vehicles and should now have
the experience to overcome obstacles in installing tether anchorages in
these vehicles. UMTRI stated that the challenge of implementing tether
hardware in pickup trucks is no greater than what would be required for
convertible vehicles, and that the innovations and designs that have
been developed to allow tether anchorages in pickup trucks should be
sufficient to guide methods to implement tether hardware in
convertibles.
Dr. Baer commented that if the exemption for convertible vehicles
does continue, convertibles should be required to state that forward-
facing children may not ride in the positions lacking tether
anchorages. Dr. Baer further stated that the tether anchorage is of
greater importance in vehicles with minimal head excursion room, as
most convertibles have far less than the 32 inches in their back
seats.\126\ Dr. Baer stated that exempting these vehicles leaves
children at risk, as parents continue to put forward-facing children in
these back seats, and that because most rear-facing CRSs cannot fit in
a convertible, children placed in car seats in the back are most likely
in a forward-facing seat. Advocates stated that the elimination of this
exemption will serve as an important incentive to meet current safety
standards for manufacturers that do not offer rear tether anchorages in
convertibles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ It is the agency's understanding that Dr. Baer is
referencing the 32-inch head excursion limit allowed in FMVSS No.
213 when CRSs are tested without a tether attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance and Porsche supported continued exemption for
convertibles. The Alliance explained that some vehicle manufacturers
may have addressed certain technical problems (such as deployable head
restraints) by placing the tether anchorages on the vehicle seatback or
the vehicle structure behind the passenger seat.\127\ However, the
Alliance pointed out that the proposed FMVSS No. 225 S6.1(b) will no
longer allow for this type of solution, because the vehicle seatback
would have to be unlatched and moved forward to access the top tethers.
Therefore, the Alliance recommended continued exemption for convertible
vehicles from the installation requirements for tether anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ See figure 25 of Alliance Comments Link:
www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance and Porsche also opposed removing S5(e) from FMVSS No.
225 on the grounds that the same issues that existed when S5(e) was
created may exist today or in the future; specifically, space
limitations or transmission/suspension part interference issues may
prevent lower anchorages from being located in the zone described by
S9.2 or S15.1.2.2(b) so that the attitude angles of S15.1.2.2(a) cannot
be met. The Alliance and Porsche also stated that S5(e) should be
retained to maintain harmonization with ECE Regulation 14.
Agency Response
After careful consideration of comments received, this final rule
will remove the exception provided for convertibles in S5(a) for the
lower anchorages. NHTSA disagrees with commenters suggesting that the
NPRM's proposed prohibition on moving the vehicle seat to reach the
tether anchorages would make it impossible for some convertibles to
have a tether anchorage. Specifically, convertible vehicles could
incorporate a tether router/anchorage to accommodate this requirement
through a method similar to that used by pickup trucks,\128\ which,
like many of these currently excluded vehicles, have a back wall
instead of a package shelf or trunk space that would give more options
for installing the tether anchorages. Further, in response to comments
that the lower anchorage exception in (S5(e)) should not be removed
because the same challenges that existed at the time of implementation
still exist today, NHTSA has observed that some of these vehicles have
already been redesigned to accommodate anchorages despite existing
challenges. For example, the Porsche 911 Carrera already includes the
implementation of the lower anchorages in newer designs. While the
agency acknowledges that changes might be required for some vehicles to
accommodate the lower anchorages, industry has already shown that it is
possible to do it in ways that would comply with this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ An earlier section of this final rule discusses how,
contrary to the NPRM's proposal, NHTSA will still allow flexible
tether anchorages and routers as a solution for pickups, single row
vehicles and buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, taking into consideration comments received and in
acknowledgement that changes required to meet this final rule may
include redesign of convertibles and/or vehicles with a rear designated
seating position for which interference with transmission and/or
suspension components prevents the location of the lower bars of the
child restraint anchorage system in the allowable zones, this final
rule will provide a 6-year lead to provide manufacturers enough time to
accommodate any necessary changes.
[[Page 1326]]
IX. Public Responses to Request for Comments and NHTSA's Views
a. Center Rear Seat--Dedicated, Shared, or No Lower Anchorages
Currently FMVSS No. 225 (S4.4) requires vehicles with three or more
forward-facing rear DSPs to have a CRAS at no fewer than two of the
rear DSPs. Vehicles with three or more forward-facing rear DSPs must
currently have a tether anchorage at a third forward-facing DSP. At
least one tether anchorage must be in a forward-facing rear DSP other
than an outboard DSP (i.e., a center seat). The March 5, 1999, final
rule (64 FR 10803) acknowledged that vehicle manufacturers would likely
install the lower anchorages in the two outboard seating positions as
two CRAS were unlikely to fit side-by-side in the rear seat. Thus, the
requirement for a third tether anchorage at a center seat provides
consumers the option to install child restraints in a center DSP, where
there is the vehicle's belt system and a tether anchorage. Vehicle
surveys of applicable MY 2010-2011conducted by NHTSA and UMTRI revealed
that of vehicles with a rear center DSP, none offered two dedicated
lower anchorages in the center position.
Since the issuance of the 1999 final rule, many consumers have
expressed a desire to use the rear center seating location to install a
CRS using the lower anchorages. In response to these requests, NHTSA's
2015 NPRM sought comment on possible ways to address this issue,
suggesting and seeking comment on the following approaches:
(1) Require a set of lower anchorages in the rear center seating
position, instead of one or both of the CRASs available at the outboard
positions in most current vehicle models. We requested comment on the
feasibility of installing a CRAS in a rear center seating position and
on whether we should require such installation.
(2) Require a third set of dedicated lower anchorages in the rear
center seat. The agency requested comment on the feasibility of
installing a dedicated CRAS in the rear center seating position in
addition to the two-anchorage system in the outboard seating positions
in vehicles with 710 mm (27.9 in) or more distance between the
centerlines of outboard lower anchorages.
(3) Require a simulated CRAS. We requested comment on whether the
standard should require a simulated CRAS in the rear center seating
position consisting of the inboard lower anchorages of the CRAS in the
two outboard seating positions and the center seat tether anchorage.
Comments
Dedicated, Shared, or No Lower Anchorages in Center Seat
IIHS, SRN and Global supported the ability to use center lower
anchorages (simulated or dedicated) but indicated that the decision to
provide dedicated anchorages or to allow simulated ones should be left
up to the vehicle manufacturer. IIHS and SRN explained that vehicle
manufacturers are in the best position to determine the solution that
works best in each vehicle, and that requiring dedicated anchorages in
all three second-row seats, where available, may increase confusion and
the likelihood for misuse if lower anchorage sets overlap and it is not
clear which anchorage pairs are intended for each seat position. SRN
also suggested that CRS manufacturers should be required to address
simulated CRASs in their instruction manuals and be encouraged to test
for this usage so that it can be permitted, whenever possible, with
their CRSs that have flexible lower anchorage straps.
Similarly, Global stated that the decision on how to provide center
lower anchorages should be left to the manufacturer to avoid limiting
design flexibility and interior layout. Global commented that for
smaller sized vehicles with two rows, the current CRAS requirements are
adequate for rear seating positions. Global added that if anchorages
for a rear center seating position were required it would not allow a
rear seat fold-down design that splits at the middle (50 percent
centerline), as there would be interference with an installed rear
center CRS.
SRN stated that parents concerned with safety often wish to put
their child in the center seating position. SRN further stated that
many sources indicate that the center seating position is the safer
location (including American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and many CRS
manufacturer websites), supported by at least one major study showing
it to be 43 percent safer than an outboard position.\129\ SRN indicated
support for the options to use lower anchorages in the center, as it is
something many caregivers want. SRN explained that many caregivers
install the CRS in the center seat using what NHTSA calls a simulated
system, but in circumstances in which doing so is not allowed by one or
both manufacturers (CRS and vehicle). SRN added that since the majority
of caregivers do not get assistance from a CPST, they are often
surprised when told they may not do use a simulated system because the
installation would otherwise appear to be correct (sufficiently tight).
SRN further stated that some caregivers are upset when they realize
they cannot use the lower anchorages in the preferred center position,
especially when it is their impression that an installation is safer
when using the lower anchorages, so they feel they are in a no-win
situation. Finally, SRN stated that the seat belt in the center is not
always easy to use for installing a CRS and does not always provide an
adequately tight installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Kallan MJ, Durbin DR, Arbogast KB. ``Seating patterns and
corresponding risk of injury among 0- to 3-year-old children in
child safety seats'' Pediatrics. 2008 May;121(5):e1342-7. doi:
10.1542/peds.2007-1512. PMID: 18450877.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI, CR, and Advocates supported the addition of a dedicated
third set of lower anchorages to the center position of rear seats when
there is space available, and a simulated lower anchorages installation
allowance for vehicles with insufficient space to fit a dedicated set
of lower anchorages. CR supported increased education from
manufacturers to allow a simulated lower anchorage installation for
flexible lower anchorage straps on wider lower anchorages.\130\ CR
added that standardized spacing is still necessary for the smaller
population of CRSs equipped with rigid attachments but stated that the
recommendation to use simulated/non-standard spacing would help
installation success for the larger number of seats equipped with
flexible lower anchorage straps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ CR relayed that only two manufacturers consistently allow
use of the inboard anchorages for center lower anchorage
installation in their owner's manuals, if the practice is also
allowed by the CRS manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI stated that the frequency of having three children in a
single row using CRS is low; however, having center and outboard
seating positions equipped with (or allowed to use) lower anchorages
provides flexibility and options, so parents traveling with one child
can use the safest center position, but can use both outboard positions
if CRSs are too large to be installed in adjacent seating positions.
UMTRI suggested that testing on nonstandard spacing of lower
anchorages using CRSs with both push-on and hook-on connectors be
conducted. UMTRI explained that since the majority of tests run to
evaluate the effects of non-standard spacing have been run with hook-on
connectors, a more diverse data set might reassure CRS manufacturers
that non-standard spacing is acceptable across a variety of products.
Advocates indicated that they have been a proponent of equipping
the rear
[[Page 1327]]
center seating position with lower anchorages for many years since the
CRAS was proposed in 1997. Advocates added that they also urged NHTSA
to require full CRS anchorage systems in all center seats during the
2007 public meeting. Advocates explained that current (FMVSS No. 225)
requirements have generally resulted in consumers installing CRSs with
the CRAS in the outboard seating positions when the center rear seating
positions did not have the lower anchorages available, but that many
consumers have expressed a desire to place a CRS in the rear center
seat.
Advocates stated that many other child passenger safety authorities
have also long recommended that when a child is transported the safest
location is the center rear seating position. Advocates explained that
placing the child in the rear seat moves the child away from safety
concerns associated with travel in the front passenger seat and that
locating the CRS in the rear center position keeps children away from
doors and windows and potential intrusion in the event of a side impact
crash. For this reason, Advocates stated that NHTSA's not addressing
the need for a CRAS in the center rear seat in the initial 1999 final
rule, and in the intervening 15 years, has been difficult to
understand.
Advocates added that a 2009-2010 survey conducted by Safe Kids
revealed approximately a third of children restrained by a CRS ride in
the rear center seat. Advocates stated the desire to seat young
children in CRSs in the rear center seating position should not be new
information to the NHTSA, as the agency itself, along with many
passenger and vehicle safety organizations, had been recommending the
use of the rear center seating position as the optimal location from a
safety standpoint for a single CRS for many years, even before concerns
about airbag interactions with young children seated in the front
passenger seating position became known. Advocates also referenced a
December 2014 study performed for NHTSA by UMTRI that found that the
majority (56 percent) of 2010-2011 MY vehicles included in the survey
could support a dedicated set of lower anchorages in the rear center
seat.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Klinich, K.D., Manary, M.A., Orton, N.R. ``Feasibility of
Center LATCH.'' NHTSA-2014-0123-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford stated that the UMTRI conclusion that seats with 710 mm (27.9
inch) or more distance between the centerlines of outboard lower
anchorages would have sufficient space to provide three sets of usable
dedicated lower anchorages in the right, center, and left seating
positions in the rear row does not consider spacing issues related to
seatbacks that fold down. Ford stated it has found a high customer
expectation for folding seatbacks due to the cargo carrying flexibility
they offer, and now offers this feature on nearly all its passenger
cars and SUVs. Ford commented that some parents want to place children
in the center position using child restraint anchorages and that it has
evaluated different alternatives to address consumers' desires. Ford
stated that large vehicles may be able to provide an additional pair of
lower anchorages in the center position; however, this option is not
feasible on most seats due to packaging of seat belt hardware and
seatback pivot mechanisms.
Ford agreed with NHTSA's conclusion that use of lower anchorages
spaced wider than 280 mm is acceptable in most vehicles, provided the
child restraint can be installed securely, and the child restraint
manufacturer permits this installation. Ford stated that it has found
loads applied to lower simulated anchorages spaced 520 mm apart are
comparable to loading of anchorages spaced 280 mm apart. Since the
anchorages are already tested using the SFAD2, Ford expressed its
belief that additional testing would be redundant. Ford stated that in
recognition that some seat designs may preclude secure installation, it
has included the following owner manual notices, which provide clear
direction to a care giver using lower anchorages at the center seating
position.:
Depending on where you secure a child restraint, and
depending on the child restraint design, you may block access to
certain safety belt buckle assemblies and LATCH lower anchors,
rendering those features potentially unusable. To avoid risk of injury,
occupants should only use seating positions where they are able to be
properly restrained.
Never attach two child safety seats to the same anchor. In
a crash, one anchorage may not be strong enough to hold two child
safety seat attachments and may break, causing serious injury or death.
The standardized spacing for LATCH lower anchors is 11
inches (28 centimeters) center-to-center. Do not use LATCH lower
anchors for the center seating position unless the child seat
manufacturer's instructions permit and specify using anchors spaced at
least as far apart as those in this vehicle.
The lower anchors at the center of the second-row bench
seat are spaced 520 mm (20.5 inches) apart. The standardized spacing
for LATCH lower anchors is 280 mm (11 inches) center-to-center. A child
seat with rigid LATCH attachments cannot be installed at the center
seating position. LATCH compatible child seats (with attachments on
belt webbing) can only be used at this seating position provided that
the child seat manufacturer's instructions permit use with the anchor
spacing stated. Do not attach a child seat to any lower anchor in an
adjacent child seat that is attached to that anchor.
Manufacturer's Option To Provide Dedicated Lower Anchorages, and To
Recommend or Not Recommend Sharing Lower Anchorages
The Alliance explained that manufacturers need to balance the
necessity for CRS anchorages with other customer requirements like seat
adjustments, the location of seat belts, etc., and that often vehicle
packaging precludes providing a dedicated set of center lower
anchorages. The Alliance added that many vehicles (e.g., small cars and
vehicles where the rear seat is between the wheel wells) are not wide
enough to accommodate three distinct CRAS-equipped positions. The
Alliance stated that even where the rear seat is wide enough, the
vehicle may have insufficient structure to carry the simultaneous
loading of three sets of anchorages.
The Alliance further commented that in certain vehicles, components
such as a seatback adjuster would not provide the space required for a
dedicated third set of lower anchorages. The Alliance added that
vehicles using a separate fore/aft seat movement in a split rear seat
may not be able to accommodate two pairs of lower anchorages on an
individual section of the seat.
The Alliance explained that vehicle manufacturers have, for various
reasons, equipped certain vehicles with the potential to attach a child
seat in the rear center seating position while not providing three
distinct sets of child restraint lower anchorages in the rear. As an
example, the Alliance pointed to a vehicle configuration using a 60-40
split rear seat with greater than 710 mm between the centerlines of the
outboard lower anchorages. Instead of a third set of lower anchorages,
the vehicle is equipped with a ``fifth'' lower anchorage provided to
create a set of center anchorages by ``borrowing'' from the inboard
anchorage of the adjacent seating position.\132\ The Alliance stated
[[Page 1328]]
that this arrangement allows for the potential to attach either a
center child restraint or an outboard child restraint (on the 60
percent seat side). The Alliance added that other solutions to provide
center anchorages in small vehicles have led to customer confusion,
such as where anchorage locations overlap, causing customer confusion
as to which anchorages created a ``pair'' to install a child restraint
equipped with flexible attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ As illustrated in figure 20 of the Alliance comments in
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. Link: www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance explained that the space required by a child restraint
system and the location and accessibility of the lower anchorages are
regulated by using a Child Restraint Fixture (CRF),\133\ and that the
dimensional characteristics of a CRF were developed to represent a
typical child restraint system. The Alliance further explained that in
a vehicle with over 710 mm between the centerline of the two outboard
lower anchorages, three CRFs (that represent a child restraint system)
\134\ are not feasible in the same row at the same time, and thus
requiring manufacturers to design a vehicle with three sets of lower
anchorages is not practicable because installing three child restraints
simultaneously in such vehicles cannot be achieved in the field. The
Alliance therefore stated that it recommends that NHTSA not require a
dedicated set of center lower anchorage in addition to the two outboard
lower anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ As defined and shown in FMVSS No. 225, figure 2.
\134\ As illustrated in figure 21 of the Alliance comments in
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. Link: www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance next described a mid-sized SUV with a distance between
the centers of outboard seating positions of 800 mm, and the distance
between the inboard lower anchorages of 520 mm.\135\ The Alliance
explained that customer expectations for split back, reclining, fold
flat seatbacks, center fold down armrest, and an expectation for a bias
in roominess and comfort at the second row outboard positions would
preclude the addition of dedicated lower anchorages in the center
position. The Alliance added that a caregiver still has the option to
use the center seat belt to secure a child restraint in that position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ As illustrated in figure 22 of the Alliance comments in
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. Link:www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance stated that there are circumstances where it is
permissible to install a CRS that has flexible lower anchorage
attachments in the rear center location using a simulated restraint
anchorage system. However, it explained that in order to do so, several
factors need to be considered and controlled. Specifically, the
Alliance listed the following considerations:
The center position must be a DSP (or else a CRS installed
using the outboard anchorages might be very unstable). The Alliance
explained that in vehicles without a center DSP, simulated rear center
child restraint locations are typically not permitted by the vehicle
manufacturer.
The spacing between the anchorages must be within a range
acceptable to both the vehicle and CRS manufacturers and that for rigid
anchorage CRSs with fixed spacing, this will be a significant
limitation.
The vehicle seats must be positioned such that the lower
anchorage bars on the outboard seats are collinear (i.e., one seat
cannot be positioned either forward or rearward of the other). Alliance
explained that this can occur if the two seating positions can be moved
fore/aft independently.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ As illustrated on page 28 of the Alliance comments in
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. Link: www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CRS manufacturer must not recommend against use of
non-standard spacing for the particular CRS model.
There must be no more than one CRS attached to any lower
anchorage, and,
There must be no contact or obstruction between the CRS
lower anchorage straps and vehicle safety belts being used in the
outboard positions (such contact could damage the straps and/or the
belts and could adversely affect initial belt routing and/or safety
performance in a crash).\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ As illustrated in figure 23 of the Alliance comments in
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. In this example the Alliance showed
that while there is good access to the seat belt buckle for the
adjacent seating position, interference with the CRS lower anchorage
strap could adversely affect the positioning of the lap belt on an
adjacent occupant (in this case it would cause the lap belt to be
positioned high on a small occupant, increasing the potential for
submarining). Link: www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance stated it would be difficult to effectively
communicate these limitations to the majority of consumers. The
Alliance added that some manufacturers allow the use of ``simulated''
center anchorage positions in specific vehicles that meet the above
conditions but that the majority of vehicle/seat configurations may not
safely accommodate such fitment. As a result, the Alliance explained
that vehicle manufacturers provide vehicle-specific guidance to
consumers about when it is appropriate to use the simulated center
anchorage position as well as instructions for using the simulated
center anchorage position. The Alliance further stated that the LATCH
Manual (published by Safe Ride News) also documents the vehicles that
provide this option; however, since such fitment cannot be universally
applied to all vehicles, seating configurations, and CRSs, the Alliance
does not recommend that the agency issue a ``blanket'' recommendation
in this area.
The Alliance also commented that there is no regulatory test device
to assess the strength of simulated CRAS. The Alliance explained that
neither the SFAD 1 nor the SFAD 2 can be used to test a set of lower
anchorages spaced wider than 11 inches apart. The Alliance recommended
that a standardized test fixture and test procedure should be developed
for both the CRS manufacturers (to assess integrity and performance in
frontal and side impacts) and for the vehicle manufacturers (to assess
anchorage strength) if the agency wishes to encourage wider acceptance
of simulated center anchorage systems in vehicles.
The Alliance commented that another concern with the simulated rear
center CRAS is that consumers may attach two child restraint systems to
the inboard anchorage of an outboard seating position. The Alliance
explained that in such cases, the combined loading from two CRSs might
overload the single lower anchorage, causing it to fail in a crash. The
Alliance stated that although manufacturers can provide warning
statements in their owner's manuals for such a scenario,\138\ this does
not prevent caregivers from making this error. The Alliance further
stated that this misuse scenario is why manufacturers do not support
such simulated rear center anchorage systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Alliance provided an example of an owner's manual warning
in its comments (page 30) in Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. Link:
www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Baer added that studies of both adults and children show that
the center is the safest spot in the back seat,\139\ and as such, the
focus should be put on requiring vehicle manufacturers to design their
center seats in ways that accommodate a car seat. Dr. Baer further
stated that the proposed requirement for the installation of center
lower anchorages in vehicles with 710 mm or
[[Page 1329]]
more space between the centerlines of the outboard lower anchorages is
an important step to increasing the number of vehicles on the road that
can more easily accommodate CRSs in a wider variety of configurations
and installation methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Kallan, M.J., Durbin, D.R., and Arbogast, K.B. ``Seating
Patterns and Corresponding Risk of Injury Among 0- to 3-Year-Old
Children in Child Safety Seats'' Pediatrics 2008 and Mayrose, J.S.
and Priya, A. ``The safest seat: effect of seating position on
occupant mortality'' J Safety Res. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center Seat Use of Simulated Lower Anchorages Only When CRS and Vehicle
Allow It
Graco encouraged the CRS and vehicle manufacturers to include
statements on whether they endorse the use of simulated CRAS in rear
center seating positions in instruction manuals. However, Graco did not
support a requirement on the use of simulated center seat anchorages,
as some vehicles may have split center seating that would cause the
possibility of misuse by the consumer. Graco further explained that CRS
connector designs may be limited in their tolerance for attachment to
the vehicle anchorages. As such, Graco explained that it recommends an
instruction manual recommendation for simulated center seat anchorage
use only when both the vehicle and CRS manufacturers would allow its
use.
Dr. Baer commented that while many parents are creating their own
simulated CRASs in the center of their vehicles (when the vehicle and
CRS manufacturers prohibit it), she is concerned that the simulated
CRAS as presented in the NPRM may increase injury risk for the
following reasons:
1. Dr. Baer stated that when the simulated position's lower
anchorages are wider than 11 inches, the lower anchorage hardware
typically crosses over the seat belt buckle for both side seats--
meaning that an adult trying to ride in back will not be able to wear a
seat belt, which is clearly a dangerous situation not only for the
adult, but everyone else in the vehicle as well.
2. Dr. Baer stated that when the simulated position has one lower
anchorage that is shared with one of the side seats, several issues
arise, including that the shared lower anchorage typically blocks the
seat belt buckle for the side seat, or caregivers may try and attach
two car seats to one lower anchorage.
3. Dr. Baer commented that simulated positions may have
interference with the usage of the side seat belt buckles. She further
commented that the interference is less in vehicles that offer side
seat belt buckles that are on a flexible webbing stalk, instead of
those that are on rigid stalks and/or are flush mounted with the
vehicle seat cushion. However, Dr. Baer stated that all vehicles should
allow simulated lower anchorages, as there are cases where a caregiver
does not have adults riding in back, and/or the lower anchorage strap
does not interfere with adjacent seat belt hardware.
4. Dr. Baer stated not all CRs in the United States allow for an
installation with lower anchorages spaced wider than 11 inches, which
might cause more confusion over where and when a lower anchorage
installation is permitted.
Agency Response
After careful review of comments received, NHTSA has decided not to
include any new requirements on the center seating position if a center
DSP is available. The agency does not believe that a 710 mm \140\ rear
width criterion for determining whether a dedicated lower anchorage
should be required is sufficient, as other design factors brought up by
commenters come into play to ensure correct use. Specifically, the rear
seat environment is complex and such a requirement could limit vehicle
manufacturer design options to provide features in high demand by
consumers, such as foldable seatbacks. The agency is concerned that new
requirements might have unintended consequences, such as vehicle
manufacturers opting to make vehicles without a center DSP to
accommodate high demand features such as foldable seats instead of a
center DSP that can be used to install a CRS with seat belts.
Additionally, the UMTRI study that determined the 710 mm width in rear
seats did not account for the complexities of vehicle designs with
hardware for foldable seats.\141\ Further, at this moment, the agency
does not have an estimate of how much space is necessary to include
such features and how difficult it is to accommodate both features
(dedicated center lower anchorages and seat folding hardware). The 710
mm rear width criterion is too simplistic as it cannot account for a
set of more complex designs and NHTSA would need further studies to
develop requirements that would be more encompassing of vehicle designs
that won't risk the elimination of the center designated seating
position by the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ The 710 mm rear seat width limit was determined by UMTRI
`s NHTSA-sponsored study.
\141\ Klinich, K.D., Manary, M.A., Orton, N.R. ``Feasibility of
Center LATCH.'' NHTSA-2014-0123-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has also decided not to require vehicle manufacturers to
recommend a simulated lower anchorage center seating position if a
center DSP is available. NHTSA made this determination after careful
review of concerns raised by manufacturers, who pointed out several
issues with simulated lower anchorages in the center seating position
that could increase misuse of the anchorages, including: (1) where a
vehicle rear seat is split (50/50 or 60/40) and can be moved for-aft,
the lower anchorages, being in different sections of the rear seat, may
not be collinear; (2) the consumer would have to be aware that only one
CRS can be used on a simulated anchorage; (3) both CRS and vehicle
manufacturers must allow the use of non-standard lower anchorages
spacing; (4) the spacing between the simulated center lower anchorages
must be within a specified range that is acceptable to both vehicle and
CRS manufacturers; and (5) installing a CRS in a simulated lower
anchorage center position should not interfere with the safety belts
being used in the outboard positions such that they could be damaged or
produce a bad belt fit for the outboard occupant.
NHTSA agrees with SRN, Ford, and IIHS's suggestion that the option
to provide a dedicated or simulated center lower anchorage seating
position should be left to the vehicle manufacturer. NHTSA believes
that vehicle manufacturers should determine whether they will provide a
lower anchorage equipped center seating position (if a center DSP is
available) by including a dedicated set of lower anchorages, or
recommending a simulated one, as they can take into consideration all
the other design restrictions and requirements they have. Manufacturers
must also make the choice on whether there may be no lower anchorage in
the center seating position.
In summary, the agency will not adopt additional requirements in
vehicles to provide means of installing a CRS in the center seat using
simulated lower anchorages at this time. The different designs in
vehicles make it difficult to standardize certain aspects of the lower
anchorages and the agency has not fully evaluated the impact of some of
the requirements on all the vehicle models. For this reason, NHTSA
believes that the recommendation of using the CRAS in the center seat
(if a dedicated one is not provided) is best left for the vehicle
manufacturer to decide and establish the conditions on how they should
be used (i.e., for/aft seating position on a split bench, seat belt
interference, etc.). NHTSA encourages vehicle and CRS manufacturers to
provide in their owner's manuals instructions to the consumer on how
and if simulated lower anchorages can be used for a center seating
position. Consumers
[[Page 1330]]
should be directed to see both vehicle and CRS instruction manuals to
decide whether they can use and how to use a non-standard lower
anchorage in the center seat.
Recommendation To Not Install CRSs in the Rear Center Seat if There Are
No Dedicated Lower Anchorages
Dr. Baer commented that a few MY2015 vehicles have two dedicated
lower anchorages in the center position (for a total of 6 lower
anchorages in the rear seat) that do not crisscross with any of the
other lower anchorages. However, for these vehicles, Dr. Baer explained
that the spacing between some of the lower anchorages is so close
together (often less than 2 inches apart) that it is impossible to
install 2 CRSs side-by-side in the center and side position, as CRSs
are typically 6-10 inches wider than the 11 inches between their lower
anchorage connection points.
Dr. Baer proposed that if a center seating position does not have
lower anchorages, it must be assumed that the position was likely too
narrow to accommodate it, and the vehicle manufacturer must clearly
state in its owner's manual that this position is too narrow to
accommodate a car seat or booster. Dr. Baer also stated that the issues
with the lack of usability of the center seat extend beyond the lower
anchorages. Specifically, she asked why it is acceptable for vehicle
manufacturers to sell a vehicle (especially one targeted to families)
where it is impossible to secure any CRS to the center seat without
taking up the adjacent seating position by virtue of the CRS blocking
an adjacent position's seat belt buckle. Dr. Baer stated that several
vehicles cannot accommodate a car seat in the center without
sacrificing the rear driver's side seat, turning the vehicle into a 2-
seater back seat instead of a 3-seater. Dr. Baer stated this is
something that dealerships do not mention to families, nor do all of
the manuals clearly explain it.
Agency Decision
NHTSA disagrees with Dr. Baer's suggestion that if a center seating
position does not have lower anchorages it must be assumed that the
position was likely too narrow to accommodate it. NHTSA also disagrees
with Dr. Baer's suggestion that in this scenario the vehicle
manufacture must clearly state in its owner's manual that the position
is likely too narrow to accommodate a car seat or booster seat. While
NHTSA recognizes concerns that in some cases the center seat may be too
narrow to accommodate some wider CRS designs, or a passenger in an
outboard seating position when a CRS is installed in the center seating
position, we disagree that vehicle manufacturers should prevent CRSs
from being installed in the center designated position where no lower
anchorages exist. Requiring manufacturers to prohibit the use of CRSs
in the center seat when the seat is too narrow will eliminate the
option for parents or caregivers to install the seats (with seat belt
or with non-standard lower anchorages if allowed) in the center seat
based on their need to accommodate all passengers.
Finally, in response to Dr. Baer's comment raising questions on the
appropriateness of vehicle manufacturer sales practices to families,
NHTSA will not address this comment as it does not relate to the
proposals in the NPRM and is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Requiring Dedicated Center Lower Anchorages With Standard Spacing To
Accommodate Rigid Lower Anchorage Attachments
ARCCA recommended providing lower anchorages for the center rear
occupant position, stating research has shown that a CRS properly
secured in the center rear occupant position provides the most
effective occupant crash protection. ARCCA added that research also
indicates that CRSs secured by CRASs provide superior occupant crash
protection compared with CRSs secured by a seat belt, especially in
side impacts, and that rigid-lower-anchorage-attachments-secured CRSs
provide the greatest amount of side impact crash protection. ARCCA
stated that while the center rear seat may not be plausible when there
is more than one child,\142\ many couples only have one child, and
those that have more children typically only have one initially, so
many children can be secured in the center rear occupant position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ The agency observes that many CRSs are difficult to
install adjacent to each other because they are wide and occupy part
of the adjacent seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCCA stated that for optimal crash protection a child should be
properly secured in the center rear occupant position in a CRS with
rigid lower anchorage attachments. In addition, ARCCA commented that
CRSs incorporating rigid lower anchorage attachments have recently
become available in the U.S and that parents choosing to use these CRSs
for the increased crash protection should not be forced to compromise
that crash protection by having to place the CRS in an outboard
location, when the center position is available but does not have lower
anchorages. ARCCA also recommended that labels and color coding be used
to prevent confusion over which anchorages correspond to each occupant
position. ARCCA explained that manufacturers integrate seat belt
anchorages in the same general area as the lower anchorages, and that
the seat belt anchorages are able to withstand much higher loads than
what a lower anchorage sustains when restraining a high weight CRS.
Therefore, ARCCA stated that increasing the strength of the lower
anchorages is also readily technically feasible.
Agency Decision
As previously stated, this final rule will not require a CRAS in
the rear center seating position, but will permit manufacturers to
voluntarily include a CRAS in rear center seating positions, or
recommend a method of attaching CRSs using CRASs (sharing outboard
anchors) in the rear center seat. This approach balances safety, ease
of use, and design flexibility. NHTSA acknowledges ARCCA's
recommendation that a dedicated center position should be available to
accommodate CRSs with rigid lower anchorage connectors; however, as
explained previously, a dedicated set of anchorages in the center seat
is not always feasible due to space restrictions. Further, CRSs with
rigid lower anchor connectors make up a very small number of CRSs in
the field. As such, requiring lower anchorages in the center seating
position to install CRSs with rigid lower anchor connectors would not
add significant benefit as the CRS can also be safely installed using
the seat belt. ARCCA expressed that many parents have only one child,
or one child initially, and stated that they should be able to use the
center seat for installing the CRS. Because center seating positions
provide seat belts, CRSs can be installed in the center seat with a
seat belt, or, if available, lower anchorages; therefore, NHTSA, does
not see this issue as concerning. As stated earlier, parents or
caregivers will have the option of installing CRSs with rigid lower
anchor connectors with the seat belt in the center seating position or
in an outboard position where a dedicated lower anchorage set should be
available.
Additionally, ARCCA recommended labels and color coding be used to
prevent confusion over which anchorages correspond to each occupant
position. Since NHTSA is not adopting any new requirement for
additional lower anchorages (dedicated or shared), NHTSA is not
adopting any labels or color coding to identify the lower anchorages
per seating position. As NHTSA did not propose any labels and color
coding to identify the lower
[[Page 1331]]
anchorages per seating position, adopting these requirements for
vehicles that voluntarily provide additional anchorages would fall
outside the scope of this rulemaking and will thus not be addressed by
this final rule.
Finally, increasing the lower anchorage strength requirements, as
suggested by ARCCA, was not addressed in the proposed rule and will not
be addressed as it is out of scope of this rulemaking.
Spacing of Non-Standard Lower Anchorages
Dorel and JPMA stated that virtually all CRS designs in the U.S.
use flexible lower anchor connectors (as opposed to rigid), which are
capable of installation using a child restraint-equipped flexible
anchorage system with varying vehicle center position spacing widths.
Dorel observed that test data indicate that CRASs attached to lower
anchorages of widths greater than the standard 280 mm have
crashworthiness that performs satisfactorily.
JPMA requested that NHTSA evaluate and provide guidance on the
potential of standardizing the spacing of the non-standard lower
anchorages. JPMA suggested having an allowance in the standard seat
test bench assembly to accommodate some distance of spacing. JPMA
explained this would afford CRS manufacturers the opportunity to choose
whether to allow the use of CRASs with their seats and that NHTSA could
conduct compliance tests if this is the case. JPMA requested NHTSA's
guidance in determining the non-standard spacing to allow for the
potential redesign of the CRAS anchorages to accommodate the angular
pull of the lower anchorages and lower anchor connectors during the
crash testing.
Britax stated it has not evaluated or tested the variety of
simulated child seat anchorage spacing that might be presented by
diverse vehicle rear seat designs. Britax suggested that the analysis
presented in the NPRM \143\ may be useful in providing guidance so that
the use of simulated child seat anchorages requires at least a minimum
spacing between the simulated child seat anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Amenson, T., Sullivan, L.K., ``Dynamic Evaluation of LATCH
Lower Anchor Spacing Requirements and Effect of Tether Anchor
Location on Tether and Lower Anchor Loads.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
In response to JPMA's request that NHTSA evaluate and provide
guidance on potentially standardizing the spacing of non-standard
anchorages (with an allowance in the standard seat test bench assembly
to accommodate greater spacing of lower anchorages), NHTSA understands
this comment to suggest that CRS manufacturers would want a
certification test in FMVSS No. 213 \144\ with different lower
anchorage spacing in order to recommend/allow it in their manuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ FMVSS No. 213 will be replaced by FMVSS No. 213b on
December 5, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA does not plan to add this additional certification test to
FMVSS No. 213, as the agency's dynamic front and side sled testing
showed no significant changes to anchorage loads or CRS performance
that would justify these additional test burdens. Were NHTSA to require
vehicle manufacturers to provide a non-standard lower anchorage center
seating position (shared or adding a 5th anchorage, etc.), it is highly
likely that CRS manufacturers will prohibit it.\145\ As such, NHTSA
would have imposed a burden on vehicle manufacturers for features that
will not be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ For example, most CRS manufacturers currently prohibit the
use of inflatable seat belts and the use of their products in a non-
front facing vehicle seat. Manufacturers stated that their products
are not certified for those conditions, and, therefore, prohibit
them (even though research shows they perform well with inflatable
seat belts and in any direction crash).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to JPMA's request for guidance in determining the non-
standard spacing to allow for the potential redesign of the lower
anchorages to accommodate their angular pull during the crash testing,
the agency points out that NHTSA-funded sled tests using non-standard
lower anchorage spacing showed that increasing the lower anchorage
spacing did not affect the injury measures of the dummies used in the
frontal and side impact sled tests.\146\ The updated standard seat
assembly (Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0040) for the frontal and side impact
tests for CRSs per FMVSS No. 213b and FMVSS No. 213a, respectively,
permits changing the width of the anchorages with ease. CRS
manufacturers may voluntarily conduct additional testing with greater
anchorage spacing than the standard 280 mm to determine whether to
permit CRS installation in vehicle seats using CRASs with anchorage
spacing greater than 280 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Amenson, T., Sullivan, L.K., ``Dynamic Evaluation of LATCH
Lower Anchor Spacing Requirements and Effect of Tether Anchor
Location on Tether and Lower Anchor Loads,'' NHTSA, 2013.
www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0123-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding Britax's suggestion to use the NPRM data
analysis to provide guidance to establish at least a minimum spacing
between the simulated child seat anchorages, the agency is not
currently issuing any guidance on non-standard spacing, but CRS and
vehicle manufacturers may use the NPRM's data analysis to explore their
own recommendations.
b. Third Row
Currently, FMVSS No. 225 requires that at least one of the two
required CRASs be installed at a second-row seating position in each
vehicle that has three or more rows. A number of comments to the 2007
LATCH public meeting expressed dissatisfaction with the number of CRASs
present in the third row of vehicles. Specifically, some commenters
stated that consumers sometimes purchase vehicles with three or more
rows to accommodate large families but are unable to install all of the
child restraints with a CRAS because the third row does not have
available systems.
The agency examined data and comments from the February 25,
2011,\147\ request for comments on the proposed NCAP Vehicle-CRS Fit
program. The information reviewed indicates there is only a small
percentage (2.4 to 4.5 percent) of children in CRSs with internal
harness (CRSs that would use the lower anchorages) using the third row,
and that the reduced space in the third row makes it difficult to fit
most rear-facing CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ 76 FR 10637. See www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-02-25/pdf/2011-4212.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM stated that due to the lower anchorages (plus tether
anchorage) weight limit of 29.5 kg (65 lb) combined weight (CRS +
child) and car seat use recommendations developed by NHTSA and the AAP
that children should stay in a rear-facing CRS for as long as possible,
most CRSs installed with lower anchorages will be rear-facing ones;
therefore, the use of the lower anchorages in the third-row might only
be for a relatively short period for forward-facing restraints.
NHTSA's 2015 NPRM requested comment on the following:
Whether FMVSS No. 225 should require CRASs or tether
anchorages in all rear seating positions.
Would requiring CRASs or tether anchorages in all rear
seating positions meet the need for motor vehicle safety?
Would requiring CRASs or tether anchorages in all rear
seating positions protect the public against unreasonable risk of death
or injury in an accident?
Whether FMVSS No. 225 should require CRASs in the third
row if it is not altogether feasible to use rear-facing CRSs in the
third-row due to reduced space in that row.
[[Page 1332]]
The likelihood of consumers placing rear-facing CRSs in
the third row, even if CRSs could fit in that row. Even if rear-facing
child restraints could not or would not be installed using CRAS in the
third row of a vehicle, are CRAS needed in the third row for forward-
facing CRSs?
Would an amendment requiring CRASs or tether anchorages at
some or all third-row seating positions meet the requirements and
considerations of section 30111(a) and (b) of the Vehicle Safety Act?
The feasibility of installing CRASs and tether anchorages
in some or all rear seating positions in vehicles with three or more
rows.
Comments
In response to these questions, three commenters (SRN, IIHS, and
UMTRI) supported requirements for additional lower anchorages and/or
tether anchorages in the third row of vehicles (if available). The
Alliance stated that additional anchorages should be optional, and
Britax stated that additional anchorages systems in the third row would
not likely result in increased harnessed seat installations.
Support for Tether Anchorages in All Rear Seating Positions
SRN, IIHS, and UMTRI strongly recommended requiring tether
anchorages in every rear seating position. IIHS further stated that
parents have the option of installing a child restraint with the
vehicle seat belt in lieu of lower anchorages, but that there is no
substitute for a tether anchorage when installing a forward-facing
child restraint. IIHS explained that providing parents with a tether
anchorage in all rear seating positions will not only provide
additional flexibility in where child restraints can be installed, but
also potentially increase awareness and use of tether anchorages, as
parents would know they could expect to see a tether anchorage in every
seat.
Support for Additional CRAS-Equipped Seating Positions in the Third Row
SRN stated that consistently providing at least one CRAS for the
third row would be helpful. SRN explained that there are few CRASs
provided for third rows in vehicles and that in MY 2014 vehicles there
were 18 models with at least one CRAS in the third row (many of these
being full size vans that are not typical family vehicles). SRN
commented that having additional CRAS equipped seating positions in the
third row would ease installation in the cramped environment of a third
row. SRN explained that CRS installation in third rows is even more
difficult than usual as seat belts are sometimes anchored to the
ceiling and back wall, and these types of vehicles often have more
difficult geometry for use with CRS installation and/or are the dual-
buckle variety that confuses many caregivers.
SRN, IIHS, and UMTRI encouraged requiring additional CRASs in the
third row of vehicles. IIHS stated that the NPRM suggested that there
may be limited benefit for CRAS hardware in the third row because of
the relatively short time that children are in forward-facing child
restraints, but commented that CRASs can beneficial longer than NHTSA
anticipates. IIHS explained that according to the most recent National
Survey on the Use of Booster Seats (NSUBS),\148\ nearly three-quarters
of children aged 1 to 3 years, almost a third of those aged 4 to 5
years, and an increasing number of those aged 6 to 7 years are seated
in forward-facing child restraints. IIHS added that booster seats are
increasingly available with lower anchorage connectors, increasing the
likelihood that lower anchorages will be used after children transition
from the forward-facing child restraints to boosters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ NSUBS publications: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#!/PublicationList/20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI commented that vehicles with more than one row of rear
seating should be required to have at least two sets of lower
anchorages and tether anchorages at every seating position in each row.
UMTRI explained that families that purchase vehicles with multiple rows
of seating usually plan to have children sit in all the rear seating
positions at some point during the life of the vehicle. Additionally,
UMTRI stated that even if families are not going to use all of the
lower anchorages simultaneously, it would be beneficial for families to
have options as their needs evolve. UMTRI explained that the youngest
children might first sit in the second row to be closer to adults, and
that families with a mix of preschool and school-aged children might
put children in harnessed restraints in the third row to allow easier
ingress and egress during carpooling for older children using booster
seats in the second row.
Support for Optional Anchorages in Third Row
The Alliance commented that the installation of child restraint
lower anchorages in the third row should remain optional based on the
following assertions:
The safety belt provides an acceptable alternative for
restraining a harness CRS in the third row.
Usage of rear and forward-facing harness CRSs in the third
row is low; data gathered from 87,655 Safe Kids Worldwide checklist
forms from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, indicate that
only 1.7 percent of all children sit in the third row in either a rear-
facing or forward-facing harness CRS that could use lower
anchorages.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ Alliance comments in Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward-facing harness CRS cannot use lower anchorages
above a combined weight of 65 lbs., which will limit their usage of
lower anchorages, further decreasing the potential usage of lower
anchorages in the 3rd row.
The Alliance added that as smaller vehicles continue to be
introduced for fuel economy purposes, it becomes difficult, if not
impracticable, to install a rear-facing CRS in the third row in certain
of these smaller vehicles due to space limitations. The Alliance added
that even if a rear-facing CRS can be fitted in the third row of these
smaller vehicles, it may not be possible for a passenger to be seated
in the second-row seat when a rear-facing CRS is installed in the third
row.\150\ The Alliance stated that in these cases customers will
naturally choose to install the CRS in the second row rather than the
third row, rendering the CRAS in the third-row unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ As illustrated on figure 24 of Alliance Comments. See
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123-0027. Link: www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2014-0123-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax commented that, according to its installation polling,
consumers frequently cannot easily access third-row seats for harnessed
child restraint installation. Britax explained that rear-facing
installation involving children under the age of two is even more
unlikely, as third-row seating tends to be relegated to older children
who can perhaps buckle themselves into booster seats or in a belted
seat position. Britax added that the vehicle interior space between
many third-row seats and rear vehicle doors may prevent the
installation of either rear-facing harnessed seats or tether usage
generally. Finally, Britax stated that mandating anchorage systems in
third-row seating would not likely result in increased harnessed seat
installations.
Agency Response
After careful consideration the agency has decided not to require
additional lower anchorages or tether anchorages in vehicles with more
than three rear designated seating positions.
[[Page 1333]]
CRSs equipped with harnesses to restrain the child are not widely
used in the third rows of vehicles,\151\ which supports comments
received that for the most part forward-facing CRSs and rear-facing
CRSs do not fit in third rows (without having to make the front seat
unusable). As these areas are seldomly used and seat belts offer a safe
alternative to install forward-facing CRSs to higher combined weights,
requiring additional lower anchorages in the third row offers no
significant benefit to justify the cost and weight added to the
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ NHTSA conducted the National Child Restraint Use Special
Study (NCRUSS) in 2011, observing the use of car seats and booster
seats for child passengers (birth to 8 years old) in 4,167 vehicles.
The NCRUSS is a nationally representative survey. This study found
that less than 3 percent of children in the study were seated in the
third row of the vehicle. Greenwell, N.K. (2015, May). Results of
the national child restraint use special study. (Report No. DOT HS
812 142). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA acknowledges comments made by UMTRI, IIHS, and SRN indicating
that increased availability in lower anchorages and tether anchorages
in the third row would offer added flexibility and options to
caregivers when installing CRSs. However, we agree with comments
received that the limited space in many third rows would make it
difficult for a child to have enough space to be seated in a rear-
facing or forward-facing CRS (without making the seat in front unusable
by pushing it forward or folding the seatback), thus limiting the use
of third rows for transporting children in rear-facing and forward-
facing CRSs. The agency encourages vehicle manufacturers to continue
voluntarily providing additional lower and tether anchorages where
feasible, especially in vehicles designed for families (e.g., mini
vans, SUVs) as those consumers would likely be seeking the most
flexibilities to transport children in CRSs.
c. Terminology
The agency requested comment on whether the written information
\152\ provided pursuant to Standards No. 225 and No. 213 using
standardized terminology referring to the parts of the CRAS and the
components of the child restraint that connect the CRS to the vehicle
would help improve the ease of use of CRAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Standard No. 225 (S12) requires vehicle manufacturers to
provide written instruction for using child restraint anchorage
systems and tether anchorages. Standard No. 213 (S5.6.1) specifies
that child restraint systems provide printed instructions that
include a step-by-step procedure for installing and securing the
child restraint system in a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also requested comment on whether requiring the following
terms in child restraint and vehicle user's manuals would help make
instructions clearer and more uniform: ``lower anchor(s)'' and ``tether
anchor'' for components of the vehicle CRAS, and ``lower anchor
attachments'' and ``tether'' for components of the CRS that are used to
connect the CRS to the vehicle. A ``lower anchor attachment'' is
comprised of a ``lower anchor connector'' and a ``lower anchor strap''
(for flexible lower anchor attachments), and a ``tether'' is comprised
of a ``tether hook'' and a ``tether strap.''
Comments
Graco recommended that NHTSA update FMVSS No. 213 with the same
terminology for lower anchorages and tether anchorage so that there is
no confusion with how the labels will read verses the requirements in
the NPRM. For example, Graco pointed out that currently section S5.5(j)
of FMVSS No. 213 says ``Secure the top anchorage strap provided with
this child restraint.'' However, according to Graco, per the NPRM's
proposal it should say ``Secure the tether provided with this child
restraint.'' Graco also commented that section S5.6.1.12(a) of FMVSS
No. 213 says ``Do not use the lower anchorages of the CRAS (LATCH
system) to attach this child restraint when restraining a child
weighing more than . . .'' Graco asked for clarification on whether the
term ``(LATCH system)'' should be included in the statement.
Similarly, Dorel stated that the use of the acronym LATCH, as
required by FMVSS No. 213, can be confusing to consumers. Dorel
explained that the English language's use of the word ``LATCH'' has
several meanings, one of which describes a device that holds a door,
gate or window, and another referring to a mechanical device that
engages in order to ``fasten.'' Dorel added that the word LATCH implies
a single device, and not multiples of devices or functions which
combined make up a system. Dorel explained that the plain language use
of terms in child restraint and vehicle user's manuals should help make
the instructions clearer and more uniform. Dorel agreed that use of
plain words such as the proposed ``lower anchor(s)'' and ``tether
anchor,'' or ``lower anchor attachments'' and ``tether'' for
components, are in fact more descriptive of the word's intended purpose
than a single acronym that could be confusing.
Dorel further explained that for bilingual members of the U.S.
population, especially those for whom English is a second language or
other comprehension factors are involved, ``lower'' and ``top'' can be
confusing language modifiers. By way of example, Dorel pointed to mini-
vans and SUVs that have tether anchorages at the base of the vehicle
seat or on the floor behind the vehicle seat. Dorel explained that when
the ``lower anchorages'' are higher than the ``top anchorage,''
comprehension can become quite challenging. Dorel stated that requiring
installation diagrams labeled with standardized terminology could help
with comprehension. Britax also indicated support for efforts to
standardize common terminology related to anchorage systems and
requested additional time to incorporate such changes into its CRS
printed materials. SRN agreed that uniform terminology would help to
make CRAS instructions clearer and less confusing. SRN stated that
given the proposed new requirements for instructions explaining the new
CRAS markings, it seems reasonable to make sure that those instructions
have uniformity of terms. SRN added that it is comfortable with the
terms proposed.
Dorel stated that standardized terminology, combined with
associated symbols, would improve consumers' ability to comprehend the
intended function of a system made up of separate components. Dorel
further indicated that this would increase the likelihood of the
correct use of child restraints. UMTRI agreed that the use of the term
LATCH may mask the importance of the tether component of the system;
however, UMTRI stated that avoiding the term LATCH doesn't necessarily
reduce confusion, as it has been in widespread use for over 16 years.
Similarly, IIHS supported the use of consistent terminology and the
explicit use of the proposed terminology in owner's manuals but
encouraged NHTSA to continue to allow and encourage the term LATCH to
refer collectively to the dedicated CRAS and associated child restraint
hardware. IIHS explained that changing to new terminology at this point
in lieu of the term LATCH would confuse parents with no apparent off-
setting benefit.
IIHS further stated that it is prudent to have the ability to refer
to all the anchorage hardware in one efficient phrase, while clearly
specifying lower anchorages and tether anchorages when necessary. IIHS
also stated that the phrase ``child restraint anchorage system'' is
ambiguous and cumbersome and does not convey the important message that
lower anchorages and tether anchorages are hardware distinct from
safety belts, as belts could also be considered a CRAS. Finally, IIHS
stated that the absence of the term LATCH in
[[Page 1334]]
the NPRM and NHTSA's website might suggest the term LATCH is
discouraged.
UMTRI suggested that the term LATCH continue to be used, while
employing additional efforts to emphasize the tether component. UMTRI
stated that some of the confusion over the term LATCH stems from the
requirement by NHTSA to refer to LATCH anchorages and connectors as the
``child restraint anchorage system.'' UMTRI further stated that if
NHTSA harmonized terminology and permitted the use of the term LATCH in
required labeling it would do more to reduce confusion than
discontinuing use of the term LATCH. UMTRI also suggested requiring
vehicle owner's manuals to include language to convey the idea that the
tether component of the LATCH system must be used when installing
forward-facing car seats using the seatbelt. UMTRI explained that many
vehicle manuals do not mention or emphasize this point.
UMTRI also stated that it would be helpful if vehicle manuals
included directions on how to use and route single strap or V-style
tethers in relation to the vehicle interior components, such as head
restraints. UMTRI stated it preferred the term ``LATCH belt'' to
``lower anchor strap,'' as the word belt emphasizes that either the
seatbelt or the LATCH belts are the primary means of attaching the CRS.
Finally, IIHS stated that standardized terminology should include a
term for rigid lower anchorage connectors, found on several booster
seats in the U.S. market.
Agency Response
The agency acknowledges several comments indicating support for a
standardized terminology and/or agreement with the terms proposed in
the NPRM to have more consistent education messages and user manuals to
improve the ease-of-use of CRASs. The agency also acknowledges
commenters who stated that removing the term LATCH could cause more
confusion to consumers, as parents will have to be re-educated with new
terminology.
This final rule does not prohibit CRS or vehicle manufacturers from
using the term LATCH (a term originally coined by industry and retail
groups, not the agency). However, to help reduce potential confusion
the agency will now require CRS and vehicle owner's manuals to include
the standard terminology proposed in the NPRM when describing the
components of the CRAS and its connectors.\153\ This decision is being
made based in part on over 15 years of consumer education efforts by
the agency, manufacturers, and the safety community to clearly explain
what the term LATCH means and to use it consistently. Given the ongoing
confusion with this term, despite these ongoing efforts, it is clear
consumers still struggle to understand the term. Although the
standardized definitions required by this final rule will likely result
in a transition period, with the need to inform parents and CPSTs about
the terminology change, the new terminology will become commonplace and
should assist in reducing current confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ The NPRM proposed to add the term and definition of
``rigid lower anchor attachment'' (which means the child restraint
system's lower anchorage connector that is rigid and does not have a
lower anchorage strap), which also addresses comments recommending a
standardized term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA acknowledges UMTRI's statement that some of the confusion
over the term LATCH stems from the requirement by NHTSA to refer to
LATCH anchorages and connectors as the ``child restraint anchorage
system.'' However, the term CRAS \154\ is not widely used in owner's
manuals or any education materials, but is instead mostly used in the
FMVSS No. 213 required labels. Although the use of the term CRAS in
FMVSS No. 213 may contribute to consumer confusion, the agency does not
believe it is the predominant reason for the confusion as most other
sources (such as manuals, voluntarily labels, education material,
advertising material) typically use the term LATCH. Specifically,
confusion is primarily created when referring to a LATCH installation
because of different views on what the term means during everyday use.
For example, to some consumers it may mean using the lower anchor
installation, but not necessarily with the tether, as it may be a CRS
that can be installed rear-facing where the tether is not used, or
because they do not know that the tether should be used in a forward-
facing CRS. To others, a LATCH installation may mean that the CRS is
installed with the lower anchors and the tether. Therefore, under this
understanding of the term, for CRSs that can be installed rear-facing
(typically installed without a tether), a LATCH installation reference
may not be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ A ``child restraint anchorage system'' means a vehicle
system that is designed for attaching a child restraint system to a
vehicle at a particular designated seating position, consisting of
two lower anchorages and a tether anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA agrees with Graco's suggestion to update FMVSS No. 213 with
the same terminology for lower anchorages and tether anchorage so that
there is no confusion with how the labels will read versus the
requirements in the NPRM, as the current regulatory text in FMVSS No.
213 calls for the use of child restraint anchorage systems in some
instances. This final rule will update the required label text to
reflect the new terminology proposed in the NPRM.\155\ This decision
also addresses UMTRI's comments regarding potential confusion over the
term LATCH and child restraint anchorage systems in the required
labeling text in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA notes that in the standards'
regulatory text, other than information presented to the consumer
through labels or instruction manuals, the term anchorage will continue
to be used, as it is part of the child restraint anchorage system.
Further, as discussed below in the ``Housekeeping'' section of this
final rule, the regulatory text required in FMVSS No. 225 that
currently uses the term LATCH will be deleted from the standard per
this final rule, as those sections are no longer active.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ The terminology proposed in the NPRM and adopted in this
final rule is as follows: ``lower anchor(s)'' and ``tether anchor''
for components of the child restraint anchorage system, and ``lower
anchor attachments'' and ``tether'' for components of the CRS that
are used to connect the CRS to the vehicle. A ``lower anchor
attachment'' is comprised of a ``lower anchor connector'' and a
``lower anchor strap'' (for flexible lower anchor attachments), and
a ``tether'' is comprised of a ``tether hook'' and a ``tether
strap.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to UMTRI's suggestion to use the term ``LATCH belt''
instead of ``lower anchor strap,'' NHTSA disagrees with this
suggestion, as the term ``strap'' is more often used when referring to
the lower anchor strap and the agency has no information on whether the
term ``belt'' instead of ``strap'' would have the effect of emphasizing
that either the seatbelt or the LATCH belt are the primary means of
attaching the CRS, as UMTRI expects. Further, FMVSS No. 213 & 213b
standards currently have required labeling statements which use the
word strap, so it would also promote consistency instead of introducing
a different term. Finally, in response to UMTRI's recommendation to
include required written instructions on how to use the V-tether straps
and to use the tether with CRSs installed with seat belt, these
comments are outside the scope of the NPRM's proposals and will
therefore not be addressed as they fall outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
d. Recommendation for Tether Anchorage Use Regardless of Child Weight
NHTSA requested comment on the merits of an instruction to
consumers to use the tether to install all forward-facing child
restraints with internal harnesses, whether installed with lower
[[Page 1335]]
anchorages or seat belt, regardless of child weight.
The 2015 NPRM explained that a simple instruction would increase
the ease-of-use of the tether, resulting in a decrease in injuries. The
NPRM also presented data indicating that tether anchorages are already
reasonably robust to withstand crash forces, and that the benefits of
tether use for all children in the subject CRSs (regardless of child
weight) outweigh the potential risks occurring from tether anchorage
failure due to a higher combined weight and/or a higher severity crash.
Comments
Several commenters, including Graco, JPMA and UMTRI, supported the
NPRM's recommendation that forward-facing CRSs should always be used
with the tether. Graco agreed that the consumer should be advised to
attach the tether when restraining a child in a harness CRS, regardless
of the weight of the child. Graco explained that the limiting factor
for structural strength is the CRS, which generally has a tether
anchorage point in the plastic seat shell, and that crash energy
dissipation can be had by the deformation of the plastic shell,
reducing the energy going to the child while at the same time reducing
the displacement of the child.
UMTRI stated that the potential benefits of the tether in a range
of crashes far outweigh the hypothetical risks of injury due to a
tether anchorage failure that has never been documented in a real-world
crash and has only been demonstrated in a very small number of high-
severity crash tests (less than 5).
Only one commenter, the Alliance, stated that it would be
inappropriate for the agency to issue blanket instructions for
consumers to use tethers with all children restrained in forward-facing
CRS without providing some limits on both the child and CRS weight. The
Alliance further explained that its members have differing opinions
regarding use of tethers for child/CRS combinations in excess of 65
pounds based on internal testing and analysis conducted by each member
company. The Alliance stated that when the current strength limits were
developed for FMVSS No. 225, the agency made certain assumptions about
the size and weight of the child/CRS combination, and that NHTSA
originally considered a combined child and child restraint weight of 65
pounds when defining the strength requirements. The Alliance stated
that its members agree that the 65 pounds combined weight limit is
appropriate for child restraints secured with the lower and tether
anchorages, but do not all agree that the same weight limit should be
applied to a child restraint that uses a tether to supplement the seat
belts for attachment.
The Alliance stated that the strength requirements specified in the
current regulation are appropriate to assess anchorage strength in the
regulation, since it is a repeatable test method and provides an
appropriate design margin, given the rate-sensitive properties of the
anchorages that result in increased load-carrying capabilities in real-
world, short-duration crash pulses. However, the Alliance explained
that the relationship between static and dynamic strength is dependent
on the design of the system, including materials, geometry and
attachment method. The Alliance added that the issue is further
exacerbated by the lack of limits within FMVSS No. 213 on the size,
weight, and capacity of the child restraints the anchorages are
intended to restrain.
The Alliance further stated that while NHTSA references test data
in the NPRM indicating many vehicles have tether anchorage strength
that exceeds the FMVSS No. 225 regulatory static strength requirements,
the agency has not tested every vehicle combination. The Alliance
pointed out that while results from dynamic testing conducted by
Transport Canada (referenced in the NPRM), are encouraging, this
testing did not include all vehicle designs.
The Alliance stated it is well known that certain vehicles, based
on their layout, have significant structure available to support tether
anchorages, and thus might have a large compliance margin; however, the
Alliance stated there may be vehicles which have to place the
anchorages in locations with limited structural support. As a result,
the Alliance explained that manufacturers may have to redesign those
systems to add additional strength, which would impose additional cost
and weight exceeding the values anticipated (and accepted by OMB) in
the original rulemaking proposal. The Alliance added that tether
anchorages located in the middle of seatbacks might have to move to the
floor, pillars, or roof to meet higher loading requirements,
conflicting with the goal to locate anchorages in uniform, easily
accessible positions such as the center of the seatback.
The Alliance requested that if the agency does impose such a
requirement for all vehicles, it must also impose a weight limit for
CRSs, and/or require CRSs above a certain weight and designed for use
by heavier children to include load limiting features on their tether
anchorage attachment hardware. The Alliance also stated the new usage
requirement must only apply to new vehicles, pointing out that it
cannot be retroactive to all vehicles already in the field.
Agency Response
This final rule will implement the NPRM's proposal to develop
simple education materials to promote the use of the tether when a
tether and a tether anchorage are available. The agency made this
decision following review of comments received. Most commenters,
including JPMA, Graco, and UMTRI, expressed support for the NPRM's
proposal to promote tether use by recommending its use in all forward-
facing CRSs, whether installed using lower anchorages or seat belts,
via a simple and uniform instruction.
Analysis of NHTSA's crash data files shows that the most common
moderate to higher severity injuries among children restrained in rear
seats are to the head and face and the most common contacts for these
injuries to children are the seat and back support. Sled test data
indicates that use of the upper tether reduces head excursions of the
occupant restrained in the CRS and therefore, reduces the likelihood of
head impacts against the vehicle structure.\156\ Tether use may
particularly benefit taller children since they may experience greater
head excursion than children with shorter seated height.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Legault, F. Garndner, B., Vincent, A., ``The Effect of Top
Tether Strap Configurations on Child Restraint Performance,''
Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE No. 973304, 1997. In addition,
the quantifiable safety benefits that NHTSA estimated will accrue
from the LATCH rulemaking was due to the tether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 NPRM noted that 99.4 percent of crashes involving
restrained children occur at change in velocities less than 30 mph and
that for a majority of these crashes the loads on the tether anchor
would be lower than the required strength per FMVSS No. 225, even if
the child restraint and child combined weight exceeds 65 lb.\157\ The
NPRM noted that a forward-facing child restraint with tether attached
would reduce the risk of head excursion and subsequent head contact and
head injuries to the child in crashes with change in velocity less than
30 mph, which are the most common injury types to CRS restrained
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint systems,'' established
lower anchorage strength requirements developed to ensure that the
vehicle child restraint anchorage system would be able to withstand
forces resulting from a 65 lb mass in a severe crash of a vehicle
into a rigid barrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1336]]
The 2012 (77 FR 11626) \158\ and 2014 (79 FR 10396) \159\ final
rules adopted labeling requirements into FMVSS No. 213, ``Child
restraint systems,'' to inform the consumer when to stop installing a
CRS using the lower anchorage attachments. These requirements consisted
of calculating the maximum child weight a CRS could be used for when it
is installed with the lower anchorages, based on the maximum combined
weight (CRS weight + child weight) of 65 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ In the 2012 final rule the CRS was required to have the
statement: ``Do not use the lower anchors of the child restraint
anchorage system (LATCH system) to attach this child restraint when
restraining a child weighing more than _*_with internal harness of
the child restraint,'' where ``*'' is a value where the sum of the
recommended child weight and the weight of the child restraint
system do not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg).
\159\ In the 2014 final rule the CRS was required to have an
installation diagram of the CRS using the lower anchorages with the
statement ``Do not install by this method for a child weighing more
than _*_,'' where ``*'' is the child weight limit in accordance with
tables described in the standard. The tables were based on a 65 lb
combined weight but give some allowances to allow manufacturers to
round the child weight limit and maximize lower anchorage use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the 2012 and 2014 final rules established a child weight
limit for CRS lower anchorage installation, NHTSA did not adopt any
requirements establishing a weight limit for tether use or issue any
recommendations of tether use, as the agency needed more research to
evaluate the potential benefits and risks. The tether supplements the
primary attachment of the CRS to the vehicle seat (the primary
attachment is accomplished by the lower anchorages of the child
restraint anchorage system or by the vehicle seat belt). The primary
attachment of the CRS to the vehicle should never fail in a crash since
its integrity is needed to avoid a catastrophic uncoupling of the CRS
from the vehicle.\160\ The tether anchorage is a supplemental
attachment point that enhances the safety of the CRS by reducing head
excursions. Additionally, when the lower anchorages cannot be used to
install a CRS due to the combined weight of the child and CRS exceeding
the weight limit, the CRS can be installed using the vehicle's seat
belt. However, even when the vehicle seat belt is used instead of the
lower anchorages the tether anchorage should still be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Thus, the combined weight of CRS + child should not exceed
29.5 kg (65 lb) on the lower anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the NPRM, crash test and quasi-static test data
indicates that many tether anchorages in current vehicles can withstand
the loads imparted in crashes up to 56 km/h by a CRS restraining 6-
year-old and 10-year-old crash test dummies. These measured loads
imparted to the tether anchorage represent the upper limit of expected
tether anchorage loads in nearly all real-world crashes involving
children restrained in CRSs. NHTSA has monitored field data for
injuries resulting from tether anchorage failures due to excess loads
in a crash and believes that such an event is very rare and any
potential injury risk resulting from such an event is small.
NHTSA acknowledges the Alliance's comments expressing concerns over
the NPRM's request for comment regarding consumer information to always
use the tether for forward-facing CRSs regardless of child weight or
attachment method (lower anchorages or seat belt). However, the
organization did not provide any data suggesting the risk of tether
anchorage failure outweighs any benefits of the use of the tether
anchorage.
NHTSA disagrees with the Alliance's comments that (1) manufacturers
would have to redesign some of their tether anchorage systems to
support additional strength, which would impose additional cost and
weight that would exceed the values anticipated in the original
rulemaking proposal; and (2) the requirement cannot be retroactive to
all vehicles already in the field. The agency is not requiring vehicle
manufacturers to comply with a higher strength requirement on the
tether anchorages. Instead, NHTSA is recommending consumers always use
a tether (when available in CRS and vehicle seating position) when
installing forward-facing CRSs to enhance the safety of all children in
CRSs. Further, the required label on the CRS specifying the child and
CRS weight limit only applies to the use of the lower anchorages for
installing the CRS in the vehicle. This combined child and CRS weight
limit does not apply to the use of tether anchorages when the CRS is
installed using seat belts or the lower anchorages.
NHTSA is aware that since the publication of the 2012 final rule
some vehicle manufacturers have applied the lower anchorage weight
limit to the tether anchorages or to the full child restraint anchorage
system (lower anchorages and tether) in the vehicle owner's manual.
However, NHTSA points out that the 2012 final rule did not impose any
child weight restrictions for the use of the tether anchorages.
The agency believes that the increased use of tethers expected from
these uniform and simple instructions will help minimize injuries in
most crashes involving children where the loads to the tether would be
within the required strength requirements. Specifically, a single
consistent statement will promote tether use.\161\ Therefore, the
agency's recommendation for best protection is to always use the tether
when installing a forward-facing CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Research indicates that only about half of vehicle owners
read their owner's manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. Housekeeping
Section 5(c) of the FMVSS No. 225 current standard has sections
that refer to requirements for vehicles with an air bag on-off switch.
However, the air bag on-off switch requirements in Section 4.5.4 of
FMVSS No. 208; ``Occupant crash protection,'' ceased to be in effect on
September 1, 2012, and, therefore, are no longer available in
production vehicles.\162\ As such, this final rule is revising section
5(c) to remove the obsolete requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ On September 17, 2024, the agency published an NPRM (89 FR
76035) proposing to remove the retrofit air bag on-off switch sunset
date. The agency is not removing the sunset of air bag on-off
switches in production vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XI. Lead Time and Phase-In
In the 2015 NPRM, NHTSA proposed a compliance date \163\ 3 years
after the final rule is published. NHTSA noted 3 years would provide
sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to accommodate any redesign
of the vehicle seat in their normal course of vehicle design cycles
without a cost increase. Additionally, the agency considered the 3-year
lead time sufficient for child restraint manufacturers to comply with
the proposed tether hardware length limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Compliance date is the date by which manufacturers must
demonstrate adherence to the regulation. Effective date is the date
when the CFR is amended by following the instructions in a final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Lead Time for Vehicles
Global, Ford, Toyota, Alliance, FCA, and Honda stated that the
proposed lead time was insufficient. The commenters provided several
reasons in support of a longer lead time, including that design changes
needed to meet the proposed requirements would involve significant
design changes, body structure reinforcement and re-design, changes to
tether anchorage markings on plastic base/cover, changes to the seat
and anchorages, and, in some cases, development of new attachment
schemes.
Global and Toyota commented on the need to redesign the package
shelf, located behind the rearmost row of seats. Global and Toyota
stated that package shelf speakers would need to be relocated to
accommodate the tether anchorage beyond the 165-mm proposed
requirement. Global stated that center
[[Page 1337]]
seating positions in second and third rows would implicate significant
design changes. Ford indicated that these changes would require design
and tooling changes outside the normal product design cycle.
Commenters proposed adding a phased schedule for all new vehicle
models to meet the new requirements, lasting from two to four years.
Specifically, Global suggested a compliance date four years after the
date of final rule publication, followed by an additional two-year
phase-in period for each manufacturer to achieve 100 percent
compliance. Toyota suggested delaying start of compliance at least four
years from the September 1 following the publication of the final rule,
followed by a three-year phase-in period. Under Toyota's phase-in
schedule, twenty percent of a manufacturer's vehicles would need to
comply the first year, fifty percent the second year, and one hundred
percent in the final year, similar to what was used in the rulemaking
for FMVSS No. 225 in 1999. FCA requested a three-year compliance date
followed by four-year phase-in, with credits permitted. Honda
recommended a three-year effective date followed by a three-year phase-
in with percentages equal to Toyota's proposal.
Toyota and the Alliance stated that the compliance dates should not
deviate from September 1 (typical MY changeover). FCA remarked that a
longer lead time would reduce the overall cost and not cause
significant delays in a vehicle program.
Agency Response
The NPRM proposed a 3-year lead time to provide sufficient time for
vehicle manufacturers to accommodate any redesign of the vehicle seat
in their normal course of manufacture without a cost increase. However,
the agency acknowledges multiple NPRM comments indicating that
significant design changes, such as body structure reinforcement and
re-design, changes to the seat and anchorages, and, in some cases,
development of new attachment schemes, would be necessary to meet the
proposed requirements. Based on these concerns, several commenters
indicated the need for significantly more time than the proposed 3-year
lead time to redesign their vehicles to meet the proposed rule. After
full consideration of the comments received, NHTSA agrees with the
request for a longer compliance lead time followed by a phase-in period
for vehicle requirements.
When FMVSS No. 225 was introduced, the final rule contained a
compliance phase-in for the tether anchorages that started 1.5 years
after the rule was published and 2.5 years for the lower
anchorages.\164\ In response to petitions for reconsideration of that
final rule, the agency granted extensions and temporary alternative
options to comply with the standard. Based on the changes proposed in
this final rule, a 3-year phase-in schedule that begins at least three
years after the publication of the final rule should provide
manufacturers with similar relief as the schedule that took place with
the adoption of FMVSS No. 225. The 3-year phase-in will begin on the
first September 1 that is 3 years after publication of the final rule.
In the first year of the phase-in, a minimum of 20 percent of each
manufacturer's applicable vehicles produced during that 1-year period
will be required to meet the updated standard, followed by 50 percent
of the applicable vehicle production in the second year, and 100
percent of applicable vehicle production in the third year and later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ The final rule was published in March 1999 and the phase-
in period for the tether was September 1, 1999, through September 1,
2000. For the lower anchorages, the phase-in period was September 1,
2000, through September 1, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing a 3-year phase-in period for complying with the final
rule, following a lead time of at least 3 years, will provide
sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to accommodate any redesign
of the vehicle seat, rear shelf structures, and other components in the
vehicle in their normal course of design and manufacture without a cost
increase.
NHTSA will remove the exceptions in current S5(a) and S5(e) as
discussed in section VIII of this final rule starting on the first
September 1 that is six years after publication of the final rule.
After this date convertible vehicles will be required to be equipped
with tether anchorages, and all applicable vehicles, with no
exceptions, will be required to provide lower anchorages. This lead
time will give manufacturers time to update their vehicle designs
within their design cycles and potentially incorporate the change
within the same cycle as the rest of the requirements.
Comments on Lead Time for CRSs
In response to the proposed 3-year lead time for CRSs, Britax and
JPMA stated that a three-year implementation period from the adoption
of a final rule is necessary to make tooling changes for the metal
components of the tether anchorages and/or to ensure that tethers in
CRSs are assembled with tags displaying this symbol as well as to
facilitate incorporating the revisions to CRS printed materials.
Dorel agreed that 3 years is sufficient lead time to meet the
proposed FMVSS No. 213 requirements. Dorel asked that an early
compliance option to the new standard be available from the date of
publication of the final rule for both vehicle and CRS manufacturers to
further incentivize early compliance and ease-of-use claims to the new
standard.
The agency did not receive comments in opposition to the proposed
lead time for CRS requirement updates.
Agency Response
This final rule provides a 3-year lead time with no phase-in period
for CRS manufacturers, as proposed, to give enough time to redesign,
make tooling changes, and include markings.
XII. Cost Benefit Analysis
The agency estimates that the adopted requirements for improved
usability of CRASs would not result in any increase in material cost
but would entail some redesign of vehicle seat features. Approximately
79 percent of vehicles would need some redesign to meet the proposed
lower anchorage usability requirements. Some lower anchorages would
need to be repositioned or the trim and structures around them modified
to meet the clearance angle and lower anchorage depth requirements
adopted in this final rule. Some tether anchorages would have to be
repositioned farther from the head restraint to meet the minimum strap
wrap-around distance requirement. Based on feedback received, this
final rule is providing a 3-year phase-in period following a 3-year
lead time that starts on the first September 1 after the publication of
the final rule, for manufacturers to comply with the final rule. This
lead time will provide sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to
accommodate any needed redesign of the vehicle seat and rear shelf
structures into their normal course of design and manufacture, without
a cost increase.
For child restraints, the agency estimates that approximately 30
percent of forward-facing child restraints may need minor modification
to the tether hardware assembly to meet the 165 mm (6.5 in) maximum
length requirement, such as changing the supplier to other available
tether hardware models. Minimal or no costs are expected from this
change as many available tether designs are available in the market.
In relation to this final rule's requirement that all lower
anchorages and tether anchorages must be marked with the ISO symbol, we
estimate the cost of ISO markings for a set of lower
[[Page 1338]]
anchorages to be $0.07 and that for the tether anchorage to be $0.03.
The total incremental estimated cost of equipping all CRASs with
appropriate ISO markings is approximately $0.76 million. The final rule
also requires similar ISO markings on child restraint anchorage
connectors, for which the agency estimates an incremental cost of $0.97
million. The cost of changing the written instructions accompanying the
vehicle or the CRS to explain the ISO markings is expected to be
negligible (less than $0.01). Therefore, the total cost of the final
rule is estimated to be $1.73 million.
In relation to the benefits of this proposed rule, the new
usability requirements will improve correct (tight) installation and
increase tether use. If the changes required by this final rule provide
a 5 percent increase in correct installation using the lower anchorages
and a 5 percent increase in tether use, the agency estimates that the
proposed requirements would save approximately 3 lives and prevent 6
moderate to higher severity injuries annually.
XIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14904, Executive Order 13563,
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the potential impact of this final rule under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, Executive Order 13563,
DOT Order 2100.6A, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This final rule is not considered to be
significant under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule makes several changes to FMVSS No. 225 and FMVSS
No. 213b by specifying additional requirements for CRAS and CRSs to
improve ease-of-use of CRAS and improve the likelihood that CRSs will
be correctly used in vehicles. The agency estimates that the adopted
requirements for improved usability of CRASs would not result in any
increase in material cost but would entail some redesign of vehicle
seat features.
Specifically, NHTSA is providing a 3-year phase-in period following
a 3-year lead time that starts on the first September 1 after the
publication of the final rule for complying with the final rule. We
believe this lead-time and phase-in schedule will provide sufficient
time for vehicle manufacturers to accommodate any redesign of the
vehicle seat and rear shelf structures into their normal course of
design and manufacture without increased cost. NHTSA is also providing
an additional 3-year lead time for removing some exclusions for
providing lower anchorages and tether anchorages in some vehicles. We
estimate a total cost of $1.73 million for the requirements for
markings to identify and locate CRAS in vehicles.
More information can be found in the ``Cost Benefit Analysis''
section above. The minimal impacts of this final rule did not warrant
the preparation of a regulatory evaluation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small
entities.
I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule specifies additional requirements for CRAS and CRSs to improve
ease-of-use of CRAS and to improve the likelihood that CRSs will be
correctly used in vehicles. The final rule provides a 3-year lead start
time, followed by a 3-year phase-in period for complying with the final
rule that would provide sufficient time for small manufacturers to
modify designs within normal design cycles, and thereby not incur
additional manufacturing costs.
NHTSA estimates there are 38 manufacturers of child restraints,
none of which are small businesses. Even if there were a small CRS
manufacturer, the impacts of this proposed rule would not be
significant. This final rule adopts minor changes to the requirements
applying to CRSs. The requirements are: Limiting the length of the
tether hardware assembly (tether hook and tightening mechanism) to 165
mm (6.5 in) (UMTRI estimated that about 30 percent of CRS models might
need some changes to the tether hardware assembly to meet the 165 mm
(6.5 in) limit), marking the lower anchorage connectors and the tether
hook or tether strap with the ISO marking, and changing written
instructions provided to the owners to include the defined terms and
instruction on using the tether. These are minor changes that do not
affect the shell or any other structure of the child restraint. We
believe that there would be no incremental cost due to limiting the
tether hardware assembly to 165 mm (6.5 in) since the tether hardware
assembly costs would not increase because of the requirement. We
estimate that the cost of marking the CRS child restraint anchorage
connectors would be about $0.07 per set of lower anchorage connectors
and $0.04 per tether hook. Changing the written instructions
accompanying CRSs would be negligible (significantly less than $0.01).
NHTSA is aware of six vehicle manufacturers that may be categorized
as small businesses. However, the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on these manufacturers, as vehicles
produced by these small manufacturers already have to provide child
restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages meeting FMVSS No.
225, unless the vehicle is excluded from the standard. The changes
proposed in this NPRM only adjust the physical features of the
anchorage systems, adjustments which should have a positive impact on
the ease of use of the systems, but that are small in terms of
affecting the overall configuration of current anchorage systems. We
estimate the cost of marking the lower anchorages and the tether
anchorages to be less than approximately $0.16 (depending on the number
of anchorages in the vehicle) per vehicle. The cost of changing the
written instructions accompanying the vehicle would be negligible, less
than $0.01.
This rule may also affect final stage manufacturers and alterers,
many of whom would be small businesses. However, NHTSA believes that
the impacts of this final rule on such entities would not be
significant. Final-stage manufacturers or alterers installing rear
seats in vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 225 must already provide child
restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages meeting FMVSS No.
225.
[[Page 1339]]
We believe that the changes adopted in this final rule only make small
adjustments to the physical features of the anchorage systems,
adjustments that should have a positive impact on the ease of use of
the systems, but that are minor in terms of the impact on the
configuration of current anchorage systems. We estimate the cost of
marking the lower anchorages and the tether anchorages would be less
than $0.16 per vehicle (depending on the number of anchorages in the
vehicle). The cost of changing the written instructions accompanying
the vehicle would be negligible (significantly less than $0.01 per
vehicle).
Federalism
NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation
with states, local governments, or their representatives is mandated
beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the
rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
consultation with state and local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement. This final rule would not have
``substantial direct effects on the 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.''
NHTSA rules can have a preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect
under this chapter, a state or a political subdivision of a state may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by
Congress that preempts any non-identical state legislative and
administrative law address the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, state common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved.
NHTSA rules can also preempt state law if complying with the FMVSS
would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under state tort
law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a state common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the state common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this final
rule could or should preempt state common law causes of action. The
agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive
effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will
be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency
has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the
regulatory text) and objectives of this final rule and finds that this
final rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety
standard.
Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this final rule preempt
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers than that established by this final rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of state tort law would not
conflict with the minimum standard finalized in this document. Without
any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a state
common law tort cause of action.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42 U.S.C.
4336, and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that this rule
is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), (planning
and administrative activities, such as promulgation of rules, that do
not involve or lead directly to construction). This rulemaking, which
amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, ``Child
Restraint Anchorage Systems,'' and FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child Restraint
Systems,'' to improve ease-of-use of the lower and tether anchorages,
improve correct use of child restraint systems in vehicles, and
maintain or improve the correct use and effectiveness of child
restraint systems (CRSs) in motor vehicles, is not anticipated to
result in any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary
circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), a Federal agency must request and
receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before
it collects certain information from the public and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This
rulemaking creates new information collection requirements for phase-in
reporting and record retention requirements.
In compliance with the requirements of the PRA, NHTSA is separately
publishing a document requesting comment on NHTSA's intention to
request approval for a new information collection request.
Specifically, NHTSA is requesting approval for a new information
collection that would require manufacturers of passenger cars and
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR or 3,855 kg
(8,500 lb) or less and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or
less to annually submit a report, and maintain records related to the
report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the child
restraint anchorage system requirements of FMVSS No. 225 during the
phase-in of those requirements.
The phase-in of the requirements would be completed approximately 6
years after publication of the final rule. The purpose of the reporting
requirements is to aid the agency in determining whether a manufacturer
of passenger cars and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less, or buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less, has complied with the child restraint anchorage
system requirements during the phase-in of those requirements.
NHTSA estimates this collection will impact 22 manufacturers each
year and will have a total annual burden of approximately 22 hours and
$0 non-labor costs.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal
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
[[Page 1340]]
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing an NPRM or final rule
subject to the Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or
least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule.'' This final rule would not result in a Federal mandate that will
likely result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995).
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court.
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. NHTSA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule does not
meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) to be considered a major rule. The
rule will be effective sixty days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register.
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. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
The NTTAA directs this agency to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. There are no voluntary consensus
standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining
to this final rule.
Plain Language Requirement
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in promulgating this final rule. If readers have suggestions
on how we can improve our use of plain language, please write us.
Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The DOT assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading at
the beginning of this document may be used to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy. Anyone can 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).
Incorporation by Reference
Updates to FMVSS No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225) in this final rule
include new requirements to evaluate the lower anchorage depth and
clearance angle using new tools. NHTSA incorporates by reference two
drawing packages, with detailed drawings of the tools used to measure
these new requirements, into FMVSS No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225). The
drawing packages are titled, Anchorage Depth Tool, dated April 2020,
and Clearance Angle Tool, dated April 2020. Interested persons may use
the drawing package to manufacture the standard seat assembly for their
own use if they wish to do so.
NHTSA has placed a copy of the material in the docket for this
final rule. Interested persons can download a copy of the material or
view the material online by accessing www.regulations.gov, phone 1-877-
378-5457, or by contacting NHTSA's Chief Counsel's Office at the phone
number and address set forth in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document. The material is also available for inspection
at the Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC; phone: 202-366-9826.
[[Page 1341]]
Regulatory Text
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by Reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Tires.
49 CFR Part 585
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 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 1.95.
0
2. Section 571.5 is amended by adding paragraphs (k)(10) and (11) to
read as follows:
Sec. 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(10) Drawing Package, Anchorage Depth Tool, dated April 2020;
approved for Sec. 571.225.
(11) Drawing Package, Clearance Angle Tool, dated April 2020;
approved for Sec. 571.225.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 571.213b is amended by:
0
a. Revising S5.5.2(j);
0
b. Adding S5.6.1.13 and S5.6.1.14;
0
c. Revising S5.9(a) through (c); and
0
d. Adding figures 15 and 16.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 571.213b Child restraint systems; Mandatory applicability
beginning December 5, 2026.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(j) In the case of each child restraint system equipped with a
tether strap the statement: Secure the tether strap provided with this
child restraint.
* * * * *
S5.6.1.13 In the case of child restraint systems marked as
specified in S5.9(a) and (b) of this standard, explain that the
markings identify the lower anchor connectors and the tether anchor
connector, respectively, and that the consumer should look for
corresponding marks on the vehicle child restraint anchorage system to
attach the appropriate connectors of the child restraint system.
S5.6.1.14 Use the following terms when referring to the different
components of the child restraint anchorage system or for components of
the child restraint system that are used to connect the child restraint
system to the vehicle: ``lower anchor'' means the lower anchorage of
the child restraint anchorage system in the vehicle, ``tether anchor''
means the top tether anchorage of the child restraint anchorage system
in the vehicle, ``lower anchor attachment'' means the child restraint
system or the detachable base's (in the case of a rear-facing child
restraint with a detachable base) lower anchorage connector and the
lower anchorage strap (for flexible lower anchorage attachments),
``rigid lower anchor attachment'' means the child restraint system or
the detachable base's (in the case of a rear-facing child restraint
with a detachable base) lower anchorage connector that is rigidly
attached to the CRS and does not have a lower anchorage strap, and
``tether'' means the child restraints system's tether hook and tether
strap.
* * * * *
S5.9 * * *
(a) Each add-on child restraint system other than a car bed,
harness, or belt-positioning seat shall have components permanently
attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely
fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage
system specified in Standard No. 225 (Sec. 571.225) and depicted in
NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2021, (March
2023) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5). The components must
be attached to the add-on child restraint by use of a tool, such as a
screwdriver. In the case of rear-facing child restraints with
detachable bases, only the base is required to have the components. All
components provided to attach the add-on child restraint or the
detachable base (in the case of a rear-facing child restraint with a
detachable base) to the lower anchorages of the child restraint
anchorage system shall be permanently marked with the pictogram in
figure 15 to this section.
(b) In the case of each child restraint system that has components
for attaching the system to a tether anchorage, those components shall
include a tether hook that conforms to the configuration and geometry
specified in figure 11 to this section. The tether hook or the tether
strap shall be permanently marked with either pictogram shown in figure
16 to this section. If the mark is on the tether strap or on a tag
attached to the tether strap, the mark must be located within 25 mm of
the tether hardware assembly (which consists of a tether hook and a
webbing tightening mechanism designed to tighten or loosen the tether
strap).
(c) In the case of each child restraint system that has components,
including belt webbing, for attaching the system to an anchorage of a
child restraint anchorage system (lower anchorage or tether anchorage),
the belt webbing shall be adjustable so that the child restraint can be
tightly attached to the vehicle. The length of the tether hardware
assembly, which consists of a tether hook and a mechanism designed to
tighten and loosen the tether strap, shall not exceed 165 mm.
* * * * *
Figure 15 to Sec. 571.213b--Lower Anchorage Connector Symbol
[[Page 1342]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.038
Note 1 to Figure 15 to Sec. 571.213b: Drawing not to scale.
Note 2 to Figure 15 to Sec. 571.213b: Symbol may be shown in
mirror image.
Note 3 to Figure 15 to Sec. 571.213b: Color of the symbol is at
the option of the manufacturer.
Figure 16 to Sec. 571.213b--Tether Anchorage Connector Symbols
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.039
Note 1 to Figure 16 to Sec. 571.213b: Drawing not to scale.
Note 2 to Figure 16 to Sec. 571.213b: Symbol may be shown in
mirror image.
Note 3 to Figure 16 to Sec. 571.213b: Color of the symbol is at
the option of the manufacturer.
Note 4 to Figure 16 to Sec. 571.213b: Either symbol may be marked
at the option of the manufacturer.
0
4. Section 571.225 is amended by:
0
a. Revising S4.2;
0
b. Removing S4.3, S4.4, and S4.5;
0
c. Redesignating S4.6 as S4.3 and revising it;
0
d. Revising S5 and S6;
0
e. Revising the first sentence of S8 introductory text and revising
S8.1 introductory text;
0
f. Removing and reserving S8.2;
0
g. Revising S9 introductory text and S9.1.1(d) and S9.2;
0
h. Adding S9.2.4 and S9.2.5;
0
i. Revising S9.5;
0
j. Revising S11, S12, and S13;
0
k. Removing S14, S15, and S16;
0
l. Revising figures 8, 9, 10, and 19, removing and reserving figure 11,
and-adding figures 23 through 28.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 571.225 Child restraint anchorage systems.
* * * * *
S4.2 Vehicles shall be equipped as specified in paragraphs S4.2(a)
through (c), except as provided in S5 of this standard.
(a) Each vehicle with three or more forward-facing rear designated
seating positions shall be equipped as specified in S4.2(a)(1) and (2).
(1) Each vehicle shall be equipped with a child restraint anchorage
system conforming to the requirements of S6 and S9 of this standard at
not fewer than two forward-facing rear designated seating positions. At
least one of the child restraint anchorage systems shall be installed
at a forward-facing seating position in the second row in each vehicle
that has three or more rows, if such a forward-facing seating position
is available in that row.
(2) Each vehicle shall be equipped with a tether anchorage
conforming to the requirements of S6 of this standard at a third
forward-facing rear designated seating position. The tether anchorage
of a child restraint anchorage system may count towards the third
required tether anchorage. In each vehicle with a forward-facing rear
designated seating position other than an outboard designated seating
position, at least one tether anchorage (with or without the lower
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system) shall be at such a
designated seating position.
(b) Each vehicle with not more than two forward-facing rear
designated seating positions shall be equipped with a child restraint
anchorage system conforming to the requirements of S6 and S9 of this
standard at each forward-facing rear designated seating position.
(c) Each vehicle without any forward-facing rear designated seating
position shall be equipped with a tether
[[Page 1343]]
anchorage conforming to the requirements of S6 of this standard at each
forward-facing front passenger designated seating position.
S4.3 Movable seats. (a) A vehicle that is equipped with a forward-
facing rear designated seating position that can be moved such that it
is capable of being used at either an outboard or non-outboard forward-
facing designated seating position shall be considered as having a
forward-facing non-outboard designated seating position. Such a movable
seat must be equipped with a tether anchorage that meets the
requirements of S6 of this standard or a child restraint anchorage
system that meets the requirements of S6 and S9 of this standard, if
the vehicle does not have another forward-facing non-outboard
designated 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 allowing for the carrying of
cargo.
S5 General exceptions. Vehicles manufactured before September 1,
2031, must meet the requirements of S5.1. Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2031, must meet the requirements of S5.2.
S5.1 Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2031. (a)
Convertibles and school buses are excluded from the requirements to be
equipped with tether anchorages.
(b) A vehicle may be equipped with a built-in child restraint
system conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 213 (Sec.
571.213) or Standard No. 213b (Sec. 571.213b) as applicable, instead
of one of the required tether anchorages or child restraint anchorage
systems.
(c) Vehicles with no air bag in front passenger designated
position:
(1) Each vehicle that does not have a rear designated seating
position and does not have an air bag installed at front passenger
designated seating positions pursuant to a temporary exemption granted
by NHTSA under 49 CFR part 555, must have a child restraint anchorage
system installed at a front passenger designated seating position. In
the case of convertibles, the front designated passenger seating
position need have only the two lower anchorages meeting the
requirements of S9 of this standard.
(2) Each vehicle that has a rear designated seating position and
meets the conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of Standard No. 208 (Sec.
571.208), and does not have an air bag installed at front passenger
designated seating positions pursuant to a temporary exemption granted
by NHTSA under 49 CFR part 555, must have a child restraint anchorage
system installed at a front passenger designated seating position in
place of one of the child restraint anchorage systems that is required
for the rear seat. In the case of convertibles, the front designated
passenger seating position need have only the two lower anchorages
meeting the requirements of S9 of this standard.
(d) A vehicle that does not have an air bag on-off switch meeting
the requirements of S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208 (Sec. 571.208) shall
not have any child restraint anchorage system installed at a front
designated seating position.
(e) A vehicle with a rear designated seating position for which
interference with transmission and/or suspension components prevents
the location of the lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system
anywhere within the zone described by S9.2 of this standard is excluded
from the requirement to provide a child restraint anchorage system at
that position. However, except as provided elsewhere in this S5, such a
vehicle must have a tether anchorage at a front passenger designated
seating position.
S5.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2031. (a)
School buses are excluded from the requirements to be equipped with
tether anchorages.
(b) A vehicle may be equipped with a built-in child restraint
system conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 213b (Sec.
571.213b) instead of one of the required tether anchorages or child
restraint anchorage systems.
(c) Vehicles with no air bag in front passenger designated
position:
(1) Each vehicle that does not have a rear designated seating
position and does not have an air bag installed at front passenger
designated seating positions pursuant to a temporary exemption granted
by NHTSA under 49 CFR part 555 must have a child restraint anchorage
system installed at a front passenger designated seating position.
(2) Each vehicle that has a rear designated seating position and
meets the conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of Standard No. 208 (Sec.
571.208), and does not have an air bag installed at front passenger
designated seating positions pursuant to a temporary exemption granted
by NHTSA under 49 CFR part 555, must have a child restraint anchorage
system installed at a front passenger designated seating position in
place of one of the child restraint anchorage systems that is required
for the rear seat.
(d) A vehicle that does not have an air bag on-off switch meeting
the requirements of S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208 (Sec. 571.208), shall
not have any child restraint anchorage system installed at a front
designated seating position.
S6. Requirements for tether anchorages. Vehicles subject to
Standard No. 225 (this section) shall meet the tether anchorage
requirements specified in S6.1, S6.2, and S6.4 according to the phase-
in schedule specified in S13 of this standard.
S6.1 Configuration of the tether anchorage.
S6.1.1 Each tether anchorage shall:
(a) Permit the attachment of a tether hook of a child restraint
system meeting the configuration and geometry specified in figure 11 of
Standard No. 213 (figure 11 to Sec. 571.213);
(b) Be accessible without the need for any tools other than a
screwdriver or coin;
(c) Once accessed, be ready for use without the need for any tools;
and
(d) Be sealed to prevent the entry of exhaust fumes into the
passenger compartment.
S6.1.2 Each tether anchorage shall:
(a) Consist of a rigid bar of any cross-section shape that permits
the attachment of a tether hook (of a child restraint system) meeting
the configuration and geometry specified in figure 11 of Standard No.
213 (figure 11 to Sec. 571.213), except in buses with a GVWR less than
or equal to 10,000 pounds and vehicles that use a routing device per
S6.2.1.2;
(b) Be accessible without the need for any tools and without
folding the seat back (other than the head restraint) or removing
carpet or other vehicle components (other than cargo covers) to access
the anchorages. Individual tether anchorages may be covered with a cap,
flap, or cover, provided that any cap, flap, or, cover is specifically
designed to be opened, moved aside, or to otherwise give unobstructed
access to the anchorage and is labeled with the symbol shown in figure
25 to this section;
(c) Once accessed, be ready for use without the need for any tools;
and
(d) Be sealed to prevent the entry of exhaust fumes into the
passenger compartment.
S6.2 Location of the tether anchorage.
S6.2.1 Subject to 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 through 7 to this section 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).
[[Page 1344]]
(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.
S6.2.1.1 [Reserved]
S6.2.1.2 In the case of a vehicle that--
(a) Has a user-ready tether anchorage for which no part of the
shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard of the designated
seating position for which the anchorage is installed is accessible
without removing a seating component of the vehicle; and
(b) Has a tether strap routing device that is--
(1) Not less than 65 mm behind the torso line for that seating
position, in the case of a flexible routing device or a deployable
routing device, measured horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal
plane; or
(2) Not less than 100 mm behind the torso line for that seating
position, in the case of a fixed rigid routing device, measured
horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal plane, the part of that
anchorage that attaches to a tether hook may, at the manufacturer's
option (with said option selected prior to, or at the time of,
certification of the vehicle) be located outside that zone.
(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.
S6.2.2 Subject to S6.2.2.2, the part of each tether anchorage to
which a tether hook attaches must be located within the shaded zone
shown in figures 3 through 7 to this section 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'' means 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 a vertical plane 120 mm rearward of the ``H Point,'' as
shown in figure 3 to this section.
S6.2.2.1 Subject to S6.2.2.2, for vehicles with adjustable or
removable head restraints or no head restraints, the tether anchorage
to which a tether hook attaches must be located outside the zone
created by a 325 mm radius sphere with its center on the R-point and
truncated horizontally at 230 mm below the sphere's center as shown in
figures 8 and 9 to this section.
S6.2.2.2 In the case of a vehicle that--
(a) Has a user-ready tether anchorage for which no part of the
shaded zone shown in figures 4 through 7 and 10 to this section of the
designated seating position for which the anchorage is installed is
accessible without the need for folding the seatback (other than the
head restraint) or removing a seating component of the vehicle; and
(b) Has a tether strap routing device that is--
(1) Not less than 65 mm behind the torso line for that seating
position, in the case of a flexible routing device or a deployable
routing device, measured horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal
plane; or
(2) Not less than 100 mm behind the torso line for that seating
position, in the case of a fixed rigid routing device, measured
horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal plane, the part of that
anchorage that attaches to a tether hook may, at the manufacturer's
option (with said option selected prior to, or at the time of,
certification of the vehicle) be located outside that zone.
(c) The measurement of the location of the flexible or deployable
routing device described in S6.2.2.2(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 anchorage attaching bars of the SFAD 2 are replaced by
spacers that end flush with the back surface of the SFAD 2.
S6.3 Strength requirements for tether anchorages. (a) When tested
in accordance with S8, the tether anchorage must not separate
completely from the vehicle seat or seat anchorage or the structure of
the vehicle.
(b) Provisions for simultaneous and sequential testing:
(1) In the case of vehicle seat assemblies equipped with more than
one tether anchorage, the force referred to in this S6.3 may, at the
agency's option, be applied simultaneously to each of those tether
anchorages. However, that force may not be applied simultaneously to
tether anchorages for any two adjacent seating positions whose
midpoints are less than 400 mm apart, as measured in accordance with
S6.3(b)(i) and (ii) and figure 20 to this section.
(i) 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.
(ii) Measure the distance between the vertical longitudinal planes
passing through the midpoints of the adjacent seating positions, as
measured along a line perpendicular to the planes.
(2) A tether anchorage of a particular child restraint anchorage
system will not be tested with the lower anchorages of that anchorage
system if one or both of those lower anchorages have been previously
tested under this standard.
S6.4 Marking and conspicuity requirements for tether anchorages.
Vehicles subject to Standard No. 225 (this section) shall meet S6.4
according to the phase-in schedule specified in S13 of this standard.
(a) For each tether anchorage installed pursuant to S4 of this
standard, there shall be a permanent marking that:
(1) Consists of one of the pictograms shown in figure 25 to this
section that is not less than 20 mm in height;
(2) Except for vehicles that use a routing device per S6.2.2.2, the
center of the pictogram in the longitudinal direction must be in the
vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the center of the
tether anchorage bar ( half of the tether anchorage
length), as shown in figure 26 (Left) to this section;
[[Page 1345]]
or the center of the pictogram in the lateral direction must be in the
horizontal lateral plane that passes through the center of the tether
anchorage bar ( half of the pictogram height), as shown in
figure 26 (right) to this section.
(3) The nearest edge of the marking shall be located not more than
100 mm away from the tether anchorage bar as shown in figure 27 to this
section. No other attachment feature to secure occupant items (i.e.,
cargo hooks or similar) shall be nearer to the marking than the
distance from the marking to the tether anchorage. Vehicles with
routing devices per S6.2.2.2 may use tags attached to the routing
device.
(b) The tether anchorage bar may be covered by a cap or cover that
is removable without the use of any tool, provided that the cap or
cover is permanently labeled with a marking meeting the requirements of
S6.4(a)(1). If the cap or cover is permanently attached to the vehicle,
the tether anchorage is not required to be separately marked. If the
cap or cover is not permanently attached to the vehicle, the tether
anchorage must also be marked with the symbol meeting S6.4(a)(1)
through (3).
(c) For vehicles that have a cargo cover that needs to be moved or
removed to access the tether anchorages, the cargo cover must be
permanently marked with the symbol meeting S6.4.1(a)(1) of this
standard for each tether anchorage that is accessible under the cargo
cover. Tether anchorages under the cargo cover must also be marked per
S6.4(a).
* * * * *
S8 Test procedures. Each vehicle shall meet the requirements of
S6.3 when tested according to the following procedures. * * *
S8.1 Apply the force specified in S6.3 as follows--
* * * * *
S9. Requirements for the lower anchorages of the child restraint
anchorage system. Vehicles subject to Standard No. 225 (this section)
shall meet the lower anchorage requirements specified in S9.2 and S9.5
according to the phase-in schedule specified in S13 of this standard.
S9.1 Configuration of the lower anchorages
S9.1.1 * * *
(d) The bars must not be capable of being stowable or foldable.
* * * * *
S9.2 Location of the lower anchorages.
* * * * *
S9.2.4 The lower anchorages shall be located such that the lower
anchorage depth tool depicted in Drawing Package, Anchorage Depth Tool,
dated April 2020 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 571.5), measures
an anchorage depth of 25 mm or less using the procedure in S11(c) of
this standard.
S9.2.5 The lower anchorages shall be located such that the tool
depicted in Drawing Package, Clearance Angle Tool, dated April 2020
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 571.5), measures a clearance
angle of at least 54 degrees using the procedure in S11(b) of this
standard.
* * * * *
S9.5 Marking and conspicuity requirements.
S9.5.1 Requirements for lower anchors. Lower anchorages must meet
the requirements in S9.5.1(a) or (b).
(a) For each bar installed pursuant to S4, the vehicle shall be
permanently marked with a circle:
(1) That is not less than 13 mm in diameter;
(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 owner's manual; and
(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 to this
section. 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.
(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.
S9.5.2 Requirements for lower anchors. Lower anchorages must meet
the requirements in S9.5.2(a) and (b), as applicable.
(a) For each bar installed pursuant to S4, the vehicle shall be
permanently marked with a symbol that:
(1) Is not less than 13 mm in diameter;
(2) Contains the pictogram shown in figure 24 to this section; and
(3) Is located such that its center is on each seat back between 50
and 100 mm above or on the seat cushion between 100 to -50 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 19 to this section. The
center of the symbol must be in the vertical longitudinal plane that
passes through the center of the bar (25 mm).
(4) The symbol may be on a tag.
(b) The bars may be covered by a removable cap or cover, provided
that the cap or cover is permanently marked with the pictogram shown in
figure 24 to this section. If the cap or cover is permanently attached
to the vehicle, the lower anchorage bars are not required to be
separately marked with the pictogram. If the cap or cover is not
permanently attached to the vehicle, the lower anchorage bars must also
be marked with the symbol meeting S9.5.2(a)(1) through (4).
* * * * *
S11. Test procedures. Each vehicle shall meet the requirements of
this standard 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.
(a) Strength requirements--(1) 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 horizontal 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 horizontally and in the
vertical centerline of the SFAD 2 at point X. 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.
(2) 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
[[Page 1346]]
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
horizontal and perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the SFAD
2 at point X of the test device. Increase the pull force as linearly as
practicable to a full force application of 5,000 N in not less than 24
seconds and not more than 30 seconds and maintain at a 5,000 N level
for 1 second.
(b) Clearance angle. The seat back angle, if adjustable, is set at
the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle. If the position is
not specified, set the seat back at the first detent rearward of
25[deg] from the vertical. Remove or open any lower anchorage cover, if
present, to expose the lower anchorage. To measure clearance angle,
attach the clearance angle tool to the lower anchorage and apply a
vertical force of 67 N (15 lbf) to the tool. Measure the angle (with
respect to the horizontal) of the tool while the force is being
applied.
(c) Anchorage depth. The seat back angle, if adjustable, is set at
the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle. If the position is
not specified, set the seat back at the first detent rearward of
25[deg] from the vertical. To measure the anchorage depth, subtract 30
degrees from the measured seat pan angle to calculate the view angle.
With the anchorage depth tool (see figure 28 to this section) on a flat
surface, adjust the view bar to read the view angle. Slide the zeroing
strip along the view bar so that it is barely touching the top of the
depth tool hook. Move the view bar forward, so the end of the zeroing
strip is aligned with the zero-scribe line. For hidden anchorages,
slide the anchorage depth tool so that it reads 0 mm at the rear edge
of the slider. For visible anchorages, align the depth gauge to 25 mm
so that negative values can be read. Attach the depth tool centered to
the lower anchorage. Adjust the depth tool base to be within 2 degrees of the view angle (30 degrees minus seat pan angle) to
set the tool-parallel to the seat pan angle. Move the entire slider bar
forward until the zeroing strip contacts the vehicle seat back or any
other vehicle part.
S12. Written instructions. Vehicles subject to Standard No. 225
(this section) shall meet the written instruction requirements
specified in either S12.1 or S12.2 according to the phase-in schedule
specified in S13.
S12.1 Written instructions shall:
(a) Indicate which seating positions in the vehicle are equipped
with tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems;
(b) In the case of vehicles required to be marked as specified in
paragraphs S4.1 and S9.5 of this standard, explain the meaning of
markings provided to locate the lower anchorages of child restraint
anchorage systems; and
(c) Include instructions that provide a step-by-step procedure,
including diagrams, for properly attaching a child restraint system's
tether strap to the tether anchorages.
S12.2 Written instructions shall:
(a) Indicate which seating positions in the vehicle are equipped
with tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems;
(b) In the case of vehicles required to be marked as specified in
paragraphs S4.1 and S9.5 of this standard, explain the meaning of
markings provided to locate the lower anchorages of child restraint
anchorage systems and the top tether anchorages;
(c) Include instructions that provide a step-by-step procedure,
including diagrams, for properly attaching a child restraint system's
tether strap to the tether anchorages;
(d) Include instructions on how to locate and access the tether
anchorage and the lower anchorages; and
(e) Use the following terms when referring to the different
components of the child restraint anchorage system that are used to
connect the child restraint system to the vehicle: ``lower anchor''
means the lower anchorage of the child restraint anchorage system in
the vehicle, ``tether anchor'' means the top tether anchorage of the
child restraint anchorage system in the vehicle, ``lower anchor
attachment'' means the child restraint system or the detachable base's
(in the case of a rear-facing child restraint with a detachable base)
lower anchorage connector and the lower anchorage strap (for flexible
lower anchorage attachments), ``rigid lower anchor attachment'' means
the child restraint system or the detachable base's (in the case of a
rear-facing child restraint with a detachable base) lower anchorage
connector that is rigidly attached to the CRS or detachable base,
respectively, and does not have a lower anchorage strap, and ``tether''
means the child restraints system's tether hook and tether strap.
S13 Phase-in schedule. The S13 phase in schedule details when
listed requirements become inactive and are replaced by newer
requirements. Requirements in Standard No. 225 (this section) not
listed in S13 shall be in effect before, during, and after the S13
phase-in.
S13.1 Vehicle certification information. At any time during the
production years ending August 31, 2029, and August 31, 2030, 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 the child restraint anchorage usability requirements of
this standard. Manufacturers shall specify the number of vehicles
meeting each phase-in percentage. The manufacturer's designation of a
vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.
S13.1.1 Pre phase-in. Vehicles manufactured before September 1,
2028, are subject to S6.1.1, S6.2.1, S9.2.1, S9.2.2, S9.2.3, S9.5.1,
and S12.1 of this standard.
S13.1.2 Phase-in year 1. Vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2028, and before September 1, 2029. The total number of
individual vehicles complying with S6.1.2, S6.2.2, S6.4, S9.2 (except
for S9.2.2(a)), S9.5.2, and S12.2 of this standard shall be not less
than 20 percent of a vehicle manufacturer's total production for this
time period. The remaining 80 percent of a vehicle manufacturer's total
production are subject to S6.1.1, S6.2.1, S9.2.1, S9.2.2, S9.2.3,
S9.5.1, and S12.1 of this standard.
S13.1.3 Phase-in year 2. Vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2029, and before September 1, 2030. The total number of
individual vehicles complying with S6.1.2, S6.2.2, S6.4, S9.2 (except
for S9.2.2(a)), S9.5.2, and S12.2 of this standard shall be not less
than 50 percent of a vehicle manufacturer's total production for this
time period. The remaining 50 percent of a vehicle manufacturer's total
production are subject to S6.1.1, S6.2.1, S9.2.1, S9.2.2, S9.2.3,
S9.5.1, and S12.1 of this standard.
S13.1.4 Phase-in year 3 and beyond. Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2030. The total number of vehicles complying with
S6.1.2, S6.2.2, S6.4, S9.2 (except for S9.2.2(a)), S9.5.2, and S12.2
shall be not less than 100 percent of a vehicle manufacturer's total
production.
S13.2 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
S13.2.1 For the purpose of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer under S13.1.1 through S13.1.4, a vehicle produced
by more than one manufacturer shall be
[[Page 1347]]
attributed to a single manufacturer as follows:
(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 which markets the vehicle.
S13.2.2 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 585, between the manufacturers
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S13.2.1.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Figures to Sec. 571.225
* * * * *
Figure 8 to Sec. 571.225. Side View of 325 mm Radius Sphere Zone From
R-Point, Truncated at 230 mm Below the Center
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.040
Figure 9 to Sec. 571.225. Three-Dimensional 325 mm Radius Sphere Zone
From R-Point, Truncated Along the Lower Edge at 230 mm Below Its Center
[[Page 1348]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.041
Figure 10 to Sec. 571.225--Side View. User Ready Tether Anchorage
Location
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.042
[[Page 1349]]
Figure 11 to Sec. 571.225. [Reserved]
* * * * *
Figure 19 to Sec. 571.225. Placement of Symbol on the Seat Back and
Seat Cushion of Vehicle
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.043
* * * * *
Figure 23 to Sec. 571.225. Clearance Angle Tool
[[Page 1350]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.044
Figure 24 to Sec. 571.225--Lower Anchorage Symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.045
Note 1 to Figure 24 to Sec. 571.225: Drawing not to scale.
Note 2 to Figure 24 to Sec. 71.225: Symbol may be shown in mirror
image.
Note 3 to Figure 24 to Sec. 571.225: Color of the symbol at the
option of the manufacturer.
Figure 25 to Sec. 571.225. Tether Anchorage Symbols
[[Page 1351]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.046
Note 1 to Figure 25 to Sec. 571.225: Drawing not to scale.
Note 2 to Figure 25 to Sec. 571.225: Symbol may be shown in mirror
image.
Note 3 to Figure 25 to Sec. 571.225: Color of the symbol at the
option of the manufacturer.
Figure 26 to Sec. 571.225. Tether Anchorage Marking Location--
Alignment (No Cover)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.047
Note 1 to Figure 26 to Sec. 571.225: (Tolerance of
half of the anchorage length)/(Tolerance of half of the
pictogram height).
Figure 27 to Sec. 571.225. Tether Anchorage Marking Location--Distance
(No Cover)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.048
[[Page 1352]]
Figure 28 to Sec. 571.225. Anchorage Depth Tool
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.049
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
0
5. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
6. Add subpart O to read as follows:
Subpart O--Child Restraint Anchorage Systems Phase-In Reporting
Requirements
Sec.
585.135 Scope.
585.136 Purpose.
585.137 Applicability.
585.138 Definitions.
585.139 Response to inquiries.
585.140 Reporting requirements.
585.141 Records.
Subpart O--Child Restraint Anchorage Systems Phase-In Reporting
Requirements
Sec. 585.135 Scope.
This subpart establishes requirements for manufacturers of
passenger cars, and of trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds)
or less, and of buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, to
submit a report per Sec. 585.140, and maintain records related to the
report according to Sec. 585.141, concerning the number of such
vehicles that meet the requirements of Standard No. 225, Child
restraint anchorage systems (49 CFR 571.225).
Sec. 585.136 Purpose.
The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a
manufacturer has complied with Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225).
Sec. 585.137 Applicability.
This subpart applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, and of
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less, and of buses
with a GVWR of 4536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, for which Standard No. 225
(49 CFR 571.225) applies. However, this subpart does not apply to
vehicles excluded by S5 of Standard No. 225 from the requirements of
that standard.
Sec. 585.138 Definitions.
(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their
statutory meaning.
(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multipurpose
passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as defined in 49
CFR 571.3.
(c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
Sec. 585.139 Response to inquiries.
At any time during the production years ending August 31, 2029, and
August 31, 2030, 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 Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225). The
manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle is
irrevocable.
Sec. 585.140 Reporting requirements.
(a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end of
the production years ending August 31, 2029, and August 31, 2030, 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 applicable vehicles produced in that year. Each report
shall:
(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and address of the official
responsible for preparing the report;
(3) Identify the production year being reported on;
(4) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer
complied with the child restraint anchorage system requirements of
Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225) for the period covered by the report
and the basis for that statement;
(5) Provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this
section;
(6) Be written in the English language; and
(7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building, Washington, DC
20590.
[[Page 1353]]
(b) Report content--(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each
manufacturer must provide the number of passenger cars and trucks and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less, and buses with a GVWR
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less manufactured for sale in the United
States for each of the most recent three previous production years, or,
at the manufacturer's option, for the most recently ended production
year. A new manufacturer that has not previously manufactured these
vehicles for sale in the United States must submit a report at the end
of the initial production year for the number of such vehicles
manufactured during the initial production year.
(2) Production. Each manufacturer must report for the production
year for which the report is filed: the number of passenger cars and
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less, and buses with
a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, that do and do not meet S13 of
Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225).
(3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more
of the express written contracts permitted by S13.2.1(c) of Standard
No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225) must:
(i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of
all parties to the contract, and explain how the contract affects the
report being submitted.
(ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.
Sec. 585.141 Records.
Each manufacturer must maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec. 585.140 until December 31, 2032.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.
Adam Raviv,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-31142 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P