`[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`