[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31883-31885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14880]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9816]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Anchorage 
Systems

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on child restraint 
anchorage systems requires vehicle manufacturers to install child 
restraint anchorage systems in passenger motor vehicles. The standard 
specifies ``marking and conspicuity'' requirements for the lower bars 
of a child restraint anchorage system to help users locate and use the 
bars and to inform or remind them that the anchorage system is present. 
The standard was amended to permit manufacturers to meet these 
requirements, for a limited period, by installing at least one 
anchorage bar so that it is visible, or by installing a guidance 
fixture or one seat marking feature that is visible to a person 
installing a child restraint test fixture. Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen 
of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) petitioned for reconsideration of the 
rule. Volkswagen had been providing guidance fixtures on an ``as 
requested'' basis, rather than providing them with each new vehicle. 
The petitioner requested NHTSA to defer the effective date of the 
requirement for a guidance fixture until the manufacturer could obtain 
a supply of guidance fixtures from its supplier. For the reasons 
provided in this document, we have denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Mike Huntley, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Special Vehicle and Systems 
Division (telephone 202-366-0029).
    For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel (202-
366-2992).
    Both can be reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

NHTSA's March 1999 Final Rule

    On March 5, 1999, NHTSA published a final rule establishing Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, ``Child Restraint Anchorage 
Systems'' (49 CFR 571.225), to require motor vehicle manufacturers to 
install child restraint anchorage systems that are standardized and 
independent of the vehicle seat belts (64 FR 10786) (Docket No. 98-
3390, notice 2). Each new system has two lower anchorages and one 
tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage is a rigid round rod or bar onto 
which the connector of a child restraint system can be snapped. The 
bars are located at the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and 
seat back. The upper anchorage is a fixture to which the tether of a 
child restraint system can be hooked.
    The final rule required vehicle manufacturers to begin phasing-in 
the tether anchorage of the child restraint anchorage system in the 
production year beginning September 1, 1999, with full implementation 
beginning September 1, 2000. Manufacturers were required to begin 
phasing-in the lower anchorages in the production year beginning on 
September 1, 2000, with full implementation beginning September 1, 
2002.
    The final rule was based on technical specifications set forth in 
November 1996 and June 1998 drafts of a child restraint anchorage 
system standard being developed by a working group of the International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO). The technical specifications 
covered matters such as the design and configuration of the anchorage 
system, and the strength of each component of the system. While many 
concepts and requirements of the draft ISO standard were incorporated 
into the final rule on Standard No. 225, the final rule highlighted 
differences between the rule and the draft ISO standard with regard to 
the strength required of the anchorages, and well as to the marking of 
the anchorages and other requirements.

NHTSA's August 1999 Response to Petitions for Reconsideration

    There were a number of petitions for reconsideration suggesting 
revisions to the March 1999 final rule. Most of the petitioners were 
vehicle manufacturers concerned about their ability to meet the 
strength requirements of the final rule, particularly within the given 
leadtime. The vehicle manufacturers stated that they had been designing 
child restraint anchorage systems to meet the strength requirements 
that were under consideration by the ISO for the lower anchorages and 
by Transport Canada for the tether anchorage, and were prepared to meet 
those requirements by the compliance date of the rule, but not the 
strength requirements that the rule had specified. In response to this 
concern, NHTSA published a final rule that permitted vehicle 
manufacturers to meet alternative requirements during an initial 
several-year period (64 FR 47566, August 31, 1999) (Docket No. 99-
6160). We specified in that document that, from September 1, 2000 until 
August 31, 2002,\1\ manufacturers installing the lower anchorage bars 
would have the option of meeting the requirements set forth in the 
March 1999 final rule, or requirements that were very similar, but not 
identical, to the June 1998 draft ISO standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The date was later extended to September 1, 2004. 65 FR 
46628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 1999 final rule had required a permanent mark on the 
vehicle seat back at the location of each lower bar location to help 
knowledgeable motorists locate and use the bars, and to inform or 
remind other motorists that the bars are present (S9.5). The mark would 
not be required, the rule had specified, if the lower bars were visible 
(S9.5(b)). In a April 16, 1999 petition for reconsideration of the 
rule, Volkswagen stated that a ``guide device installed onto the 
anchorage at the seat bight'' should be considered ``as a marking 
device or an anchorage locator.'' \2\ In the August 31, 1999

[[Page 31884]]

response to the petitions for reconsideration, the agency adopted 
alternative visibility requirements for the lower bars. They required 
that ``at least one anchorage bar (when deployed for use), one guidance 
fixture, or one seat marking feature shall be readily visible to the 
person installing the [child restraint fixture] * * *'' (S15.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Volkswagen also stated in its petition that it supported the 
petition for reconsideration of the final rule submitted by the 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance). The Alliance's 
April 17, 1999 petition for reconsideration asked NHTSA to amend 
S9.5 to require marking of one, not two, of the anchorage bars, and 
did not specifically request that guidance fixtures be allowed to 
satisfy marking requirements. The Alliance later submitted an 
October 15, 1999 petition for reconsideration that included the 
request to allow guidance fixtures as an option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Alliance's October 1999 Petition for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received a number of petitions for reconsideration of various 
provisions of the August 1999 final rule. The Alliance submitted an 
October 15, 1999 petition requesting reconsideration of a number of 
provisions, including the marking alternative in S15.4. The Alliance 
asked NHTSA to add a parenthetical phrase, ``(when installed),'' after 
``guidance fixture.'' The petitioner said that the parenthetical should 
be added to S15.4 because ``the intent of the S15 is to incorporate the 
provisions of the ISO Draft.'' The Alliance did not specify which 
version (i.e., what date) of the draft ISO standard it was referring 
to.

NHTSA's July 2000 Response to Petitions for Reconsideration

    In a July 31, 2000 response to petitions for reconsideration (65 FR 
46628; July 31, 2000) (Docket No. NHTSA-7648), NHTSA declined to add 
the parenthetical ``(when installed)'' sought by the Alliance. We 
reasoned that adding the parenthetical would suggest, contrary to our 
intent, that manufacturers could satisfy marking requirements if they 
provided the guidance fixtures with a new motor vehicle without 
actually installing them in the motor vehicle. The agency's intent was 
that the guidance fixtures be installed prior to delivery to consumers 
to ensure that the consumer could see the anchorage system, its 
location, and its appearance when the fixtures are properly installed. 
We concluded that requiring manufacturers to install the guidance 
fixtures would result in the vehicle owner either leaving them attached 
and thus ready to use or taking some affirmative action to determine 
how to remove them and then actually removing them. We believed that, 
in either event, the owners would be more likely to notice and remember 
the fixtures than if the fixtures were simply provided with the 
vehicle, but not actually installed in it.
    In addition, we explained in the July 2000 final rule that NHTSA 
had permitted manufacturers the option of meeting draft ISO 
requirements to facilitate and thus accelerate the installation of 
child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles. We stated that 
manufacturers could meet the draft ISO requirements for strength and 
location of anchorages more expeditiously than they could meet the 
March 1999 final rule's requirements for strength and location. 
However, we concluded that guidance fixtures could be easily snapped on 
to the lower bars when the vehicles were offered for sale. Having to 
install them would not delay or impede introduction of child restraint 
anchorage systems in vehicles. We noted further that, in the June 1998 
draft version of the ISO standard that we used in developing the March 
1999 final rule, the parenthetical was not present. For all these 
reasons, we denied the request to add the parenthetical. Instead, to 
clarify S15.4, we added a sentence stating that ``If guidance fixtures 
are used to meet this [marking] requirement, the fixture(s) (although 
removable) must be installed.''

Volkswagen August 2000 Petition for Reconsideration

    On August 17, 2000, Volkswagen filed a petition for reconsideration 
concerning S15.4. Volkswagen indicated that it was surprised that NHTSA 
denied the Alliance's request to add the parenthetical. Volkswagen 
stated that it had been providing lower anchorages in some of its 
models beginning with the 1999 model year, but had not been providing 
the guidance fixtures. Volkswagen stated in its petition:

    Those anchorages are not visible and no seat marking feature is 
provided but a guidance fixture has been developed and is available 
for user installation consistent with the 1999 ISO draft. 
Immediately upon becoming aware of NHTSA's July 31, 2000 Notice, 
Volkswagen requested its supplier of guidance fixtures to furnish 
sufficient quantities for installation in production on a best 
effort basis but in no event later than August 30, 2000. Based upon 
information furnished by the supplier, Volkswagen is not certain 
that it can comply with S15.4 by the end of August * * *. Volkswagen 
therefore petitions that the effective date of S15.4 be deferred for 
an additional 30 days at which time Volkswagen will be certain that 
all vehicles can be delivered to consumers in strict compliance with 
the new regulations. Volkswagen will also conduct a mailing campaign 
to the owners of all Jetta, Golf, Cabrio and New Beetle vehicles 
manufactured since September 1, 1999 or later * * *.

    To justify the deferral, Volkswagen stated:

    Because guidance fixtures serve to identify existing anchorages 
in the vehicle only and are not essential to the safe use of the 
vehicle, and because child restraint systems using rigid attachments 
which are suitable for use with the guidance fixtures are not 
available in the market at this time, Volkswagen believes there is 
no detriment to motor vehicle safety which would be caused by the 
deferral of the effective date.

II. Agency Decision

    NHTSA is denying the petition for the reasons set forth below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA informed Volkswagen by telephone on August 30, 2000, 
that the petition would be denied (see memorandum in docket 2000-
7648-3 describing the conversation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, installation of guidance fixtures is not the 
sole means by which a manufacturer may comply with the marking and 
conspicuity requirements specified in the standard. While Volkswagen's 
request for an extension of time to provide the guidance fixtures was 
based on its uncertainty regarding the ability of a supplier of these 
fixtures to provide sufficient quantities of the fixtures in a time 
period that would enable Volkswagen to meet the requirements of the 
standard, we note that Volkswagen could have alternatively taken steps 
to mark the location of the lower anchorages on the vehicle seat in 
accordance with S9.5(a).
    The August 1999 response to petitions for reconsideration permitted 
manufacturers to use a guidance fixture to meet the marking and 
conspicuity requirements for a limited time. In interpreting the August 
1999 rule, Volkswagen apparently concluded that a manufacturer relying 
on guidance features to comply with those requirements need not provide 
the guidance fixtures with each vehicle. Volkswagen apparently 
concluded that it was possible to comply with the requirements by 
offering the guidance fixtures to new vehicle purchasers on an ``as 
requested'' basis.
    We believe Volkswagen's interpretation of S15.4 was unreasonable. 
The language of S15.4, ``Marking and conspicuity of the lower 
anchorages,'' has stated since its adoption that ``at least one 
anchorage bar (when deployed for use), one guidance fixture, or one 
seat marking feature'' shall be readily visible. For each vehicle to 
meet the requirement that the bar, guidance fixture or seat marking 
feature be visible by means of guidance fixtures, the fixtures had to 
be provided with each vehicle. The agency notes that Volkswagen was the 
only

[[Page 31885]]

manufacturer that indicated that it believed that the guidance fixtures 
could be provided on an ``as requested'' basis.
    It was also unreasonable of Volkswagen to conclude that the 
guidance fixtures need not be provided, given the reasons why the 
agency had required them. The preamble to the final rule establishing 
Standard No. 225 made clear that NHTSA considered the standard's 
marking and conspicuity requirements to be crucial elements 
contributing to the correct use of child restraint anchorage systems. 
Marking the lower anchorage bars and making them conspicuous helps 
knowledgeable motorists locate and use the bars and informs or reminds 
other motorists that the anchorage system is present.

    Consumers may not otherwise learn of the existence of a child 
restraint anchorage system in a particular vehicle or at a 
particular seating position in a vehicle without some type of visual 
reminder that the anchorage system is present. Even when they know 
the bars are present, they may not know precisely where in the seat 
bight to look for the bars.

    64 FR at 10802. It was unreasonable for Volkswagen to conclude that 
NHTSA would identify a need to make the anchorages conspicuous and 
would identify specific alternatives manufacturers may take to meet the 
need (mark the seat back, provide a guidance fixture, or place an 
anchorage where it is visible), then allow manufacturers the option of 
selling vehicles that do not meet any of the alternatives.
    Volkswagen believes there is no detriment to motor vehicle safety 
which would be caused by the deferral of the effective date because 
guidance fixtures serve to identify existing anchorages in the vehicle 
only and are not essential to the safe use of the vehicle, and because 
child restraint systems using rigid attachments which are suitable for 
use with the guidance fixtures are not available in the market at this 
time. To the contrary, we believe that anchorage bars that are not 
visible, marked with a circle or made conspicuous by a guidance fixture 
are not so likely to be noticed by consumers. This lower visibility 
would likely result in reduced overall use of the child restraint 
anchorage system. Installed guidance fixtures also clearly show the 
anchorage bars of a child restraint anchorage system to users, which 
can reduce the likelihood that users may mistakenly latch their child 
restraints on to an incorrect or unsuitable part of the vehicle 
structure. Because guidance fixtures increase the visibility and 
therefore likelihood of correct use of the anchorage bars, they are a 
benefit to all child restraint users, not just to owners of child 
restraints with rigid attachments. Further, since child restraint 
systems using rigid attachments which are suitable for use with the 
guidance fixtures will be available in the market in the future, we 
believe that during the life span of a vehicle equipped with an 
anchorage system, there is a high likelihood that the vehicle will be 
owned by someone having a child restraint with rigid attachments. As 
discussed, the guidance fixtures would facilitate use of the child 
restraint anchorage system throughout the life of the vehicle.
    For these reasons, NHTSA is denying Volkswagen's petition for 
reconsideration. The marking and conspicuity requirements of S15.4 
apply to any child restraint anchorage system installed on a vehicle on 
or after September 1, 1999, including those voluntarily installed.

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

    Issued on May 31, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-14880 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P