[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3743-3785]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00162]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 15

January 23, 2015

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 571

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child
Restraint Anchorage Systems; Incorporation by Reference; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0123]
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with NHTSA's 2011-2013 Priority Plan and the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), this
document proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' to improve the
ease of use of the lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage
systems and the ease of use of tether anchorages. This document also
proposes changes to FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' to
amend labeling and other requirements to improve the ease of use of
child restraint systems with a vehicle anchorage system. This NPRM
proposes rulemaking on these and other requirements to increase the
correct use of child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages,
and the correct use of child restraints, with the ultimate goal of
reducing injuries to restrained children in motor vehicle crashes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2015.
    Proposed compliance date: We propose that the compliance date for
the amendments in this rulemaking action would be three years following
the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. We
propose to permit optional early compliance with the amended
requirements.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone:
202-366-6345) (fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call
Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (fax:
202-366-3820). Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Statutory Mandate
III. Efforts To Improve Vehicle/Child Restraint Compatibility and
Ease of Use of Child Restraint Anchorage Systems
    a. ISO Rating System
    b. SAE Guidelines
    c. NCAP Vehicle-CRS Fit Program
    d. UMTRI's LATCH Usability Study
    1. Overview of the Study
    2. Three Seat Characteristics Were Well Correlated With Correct
Use
    A. Clearance Angle
    B. Attachment Force
    C. Anchorage Depth
IV. UMTRI's Assessment of the ISO, SAE, and NCAP Programs
V. NHTSA's Preference Is the UMTRI Approach
VI. Proposal To Improve Lower Anchorage Usability
    a. Clearance Angle
    b. Attachment Force
    c. Anchorage Depth
    d. Estimated Rate of Current Compliance
VII. Proposal To Improve Tether Anchorage Usability
    a. Limit the Zone
    b. Anchorage Must Be Accessible
    c. Standardized Configuration
    d. Clearance Around the Tether Anchorage
VIII. Conspicuity and Identification of Anchorages
    a. Marking Lower Anchorages
    b. Marking Tether Anchorages
IX. Conspicuity and Identification of CRS Connectors
    a. Lower Anchorage Connectors
    b. Tether Hook
X. Request for Comments
    a. Center Rear Seat
    b. Third Row
    c. Vehicles Currently Excluded From FMVSS No. 225
    d. Written Instructions
    1. Terminology
    2. Recommendation for Tether Anchor Use
XI. Proposed Effective Date
XII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
XIII. Public Participation

I. Executive Summary

Introduction

    In accordance with NHTSA's 2011-2013 Priority Plan and Subtitle E
of MAP-21, this document proposes to amend FMVSS No. 225 to improve the
ease of use of child restraint anchorage systems. First, we propose to
amend FMVSS No. 225 to adopt requirements that would make it easier for
consumers to attach child restraints to the lower anchorages of child
restraint anchorage systems. The requirements would ensure that vehicle
manufacturers produce lower anchorages that: (a) Have sufficient
clearance around each lower anchorage for consumers to maneuver the
child restraint system (CRS) connector; (b) are located such that the
CRS connector can be attached to the bar using a reasonable amount of
force; and, (c) are within two centimeters (cm) of the outer surface of
the ``seat bight'' (the seat bight is approximately the intersection of
the seat bottom cushion and seat back cushion).
    Second, we propose 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,'' by prohibiting the anchorages
from being placed under a vehicle seat or hidden under carpet, and by
requiring them to be placed where there is enough space around the
anchorage for consumers to tighten the tether strap.
    Third, this document proposes to amend FMVSS No. 225 and FMVSS No.
213 to require, among other things, vehicles and CRSs to use a
standardized symbol to more effectively identify the anchorages in the
vehicle and the components on CRSs that attach to those anchorages.
    In addition, this document requests comments on several issues
relating to the usability of child restraint anchorage systems. We
request comment on whether child restraint anchorage

systems and/or tether anchorages should be required in more rear
seating positions than currently required, including in vehicles now
excluded from FMVSS No. 225. We also request comment on the merits of
requiring vehicle and CRS manufacturers to use standardized terminology
in users' manuals in describing components of the child restraint
anchorage system and the connectors of child restraint systems, to
enhance consumer education and increase correct use of child restraint
anchorage systems and child restraints. Finally, test data indicate
that tether anchorages are sufficiently robust to provide crash
protection to virtually all children restrained in a harnessed child
restraint. We request comment on the merits of consumer information
that advises consumers to attach the tether when restraining a child in
a harnessed child restraint, regardless of the weight of the child.

Background

    In 1999, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 225,\1\ a standard that requires
vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with child restraint anchorage
systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat
belts. The child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225
is a 3-point system consisting of two lower anchorages and a tether
anchorage designed for attaching a child restraint system to a vehicle.
Each lower anchorage consists of a six millimeter (mm) diameter
straight rod, or ``bar,'' onto which a CRS connector can be attached.
The two lower anchorage bars are typically located at or near the seat
bight in a position where they will not be felt by seated adult
occupants. The tether anchorage is a part to which a tether hook of a
CRS can be attached. Standard No. 225 requires vehicles with three or
more forward-facing rear seating positions to be equipped with child
restraint anchorage systems at not fewer than two rear seating
positions and a tether anchorage at an additional rear seating
position. That third tether anchorage can be used when installing a CRS
with the vehicle's seat belt. The requirements of FMVSS No. 225 were
phased into new vehicles from 1999 to 2002 beginning with the tether
anchorage in passenger cars in 1999, and ending with full
implementation of FMVSS No. 225 for passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs), and trucks and buses \2\ on September 1,
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 571.225.
    \2\ Specifically, trucks and MPVs with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds (lb)) or less,
and to buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1999 rule also amended FMVSS No. 213 to require CRSs to be
equipped with connectors that enable the CRS to attach to the vehicle's
lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system.3 4
A new head excursion performance requirement was added for forward-
facing child restraints (other than booster seats), and to meet it,
child restraints typically use a tether strap affixed to the top of the
restraints. The tether strap must have a hook that is designed to
attach to the tether anchorage of the child restraint anchorage system
(see S5.9(b) of FMVSS No. 213).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 CFR 571.213, sections S5.3.2, S5.9. Excepted from the
requirement were booster seats, car beds, and harnesses.
    \4\ Additionally, Standard No. 213 requires all CRSs to be
capable of attachment to the vehicle seat by a seat belt, even if
the CRS has lower anchorage connectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this NPRM we use the following term for the full vehicle system:
``Child restraint anchorage system.'' \5\ We use the following for the
lower anchorage points of a child restraint anchorage system: ``Lower
anchorage(s).'' The tether securement point is called a ``tether
anchorage.'' For the CRS, we use the following terms to refer to the
various parts of a child restraint that connect to the child restraint
anchorage system, as appropriate: ``Child restraint system connectors
(or CRS connectors),'' ``lower anchorage connector(s),'' ``tether
anchorage connector,'' ``tether strap,'' and ``tether hook.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.'' The term was developed by a group of manufacturers and
retailers soon after the 1999 final rule, for use in educating
consumers on the availability and use of the anchorage system and
for marketing purposes. ``LATCH'' has been used in various materials
in the field and by NHTSA to refer to the vehicle 3-point child
restraint anchorage system, but at times the term has been used to
refer just to the lower two anchorages of the system, and at times
it has been used to refer to the connectors of the child restraint
system that attach to the lower anchorages. Also, apparently a
number of consumers identify the tether anchorage solely with the
``LATCH'' system, and so mistakenly do not attach the CRS's tether
strap when using the vehicle belt system to attach a child
restraint. Because some ambiguity has developed with the use of the
term ``LATCH,'' we generally avoid using the term ``LATCH'' in this
NPRM when possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Developments Post-1999 Final Rule

    Child restraint anchorage systems meeting FMVSS No. 225, and child
restraints meeting the associated requirements of FMVSS No. 213, have
been successfully implemented in the fleet. Consumers who use the
system generally like the system.\6\ However, many consumers do not use
child restraint anchorage systems because they do not know enough about
the systems.\7\ Many consumers also misuse the child restraint
anchorage system or find aspects of it difficult to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 this preamble.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2007, NHTSA held a public meeting on child restraint anchorage
systems to see how the systems could be improved.\8\ There were
repeated comments at the meeting that the lower anchorages often were
embedded deep into the seat bight, making it difficult for consumers to
reach the lower anchorages and attach the lower anchorage connectors.
There were also complaints that it was difficult to attach lower
anchorage connectors to the lower anchorages because of surrounding
stiff cushions or fabric/leather or the proximity of seat belt buckles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Docket No. NHTSA-07-26833. A summary of the public meeting
can be found in Appendix B to this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the 2007 meeting, the agency identified improving the
ease of use of child restraint anchorage systems as an area of
significance to NHTSA. NHTSA announced in the NHTSA Vehicle Safety and
Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011-2013 (March
2011) (``2011 Priority Plan'') \9\ that the agency is addressing issues
to improve the usability of child restraint anchorage systems and may
initiate rulemaking on issues relating to the presence of anchorage
systems in center rear seats, tether anchorage locations, weight limits
of anchorages,\10\ and labeling of the anchorage locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/2011-2013_Vehicle_Safety-Fuel_Economy_Rulemaking-Research_Priority_Plan.pdf
    \10\ The agency addressed the issue of the weight limit of the
lower anchorages by a new labeling requirement that informs
consumers of the load limits of the child restraint anchorage
system. See 77 FR 11626, February 27, 2012; response to petition for
reconsideration, 79 FR 10396, February 25, 2014. NHTSA originally
designed the child restraint anchorage systems to be strong enough
to withstand crash forces generated by a 29.5 kg (65 lb) mass (the
mass would be from the child restraint plus the restrained child).
Child restraint systems and the children for whom many of them are
designed have become heavier over the years. To ensure the lower
anchorages are strong enough to hold the CRS plus child in serious
and severe crashes, NHTSA adopted a labeling requirement applying to
child restraints which, together with the restrained child, would
impose a combined weight over 29.5 kg (65 lb) on the lower
anchorages. These CRSs must have a label informing consumers to use
the seat belt system instead of the lower anchorages to attach the
child restraint to the vehicle seat once the combined weight exceeds
29.5 kg (65 lb).

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

    The ease of use of child restraint anchorage systems is inherently
challenging because the vehicle is manufactured by one party and the
child restraint is manufactured by another. The vehicle seat is
designed with occupant comfort and safety in mind, along with
aesthetics; child restraint compatibility can be difficult to plan for
given the wide and constantly changing array of child restraints.
Through usability requirements adopted in the 1999 final rule, we
improved the interface between the vehicle anchorage system and the
child restraint. Yet, our improvements for the vehicle side focused on
standardizing the parameters of the 3-point anchorage system and
specifying where the anchorage system should be positioned overall in a
vehicle and relative to a ``child restraint fixture'' (CRF) test device
to optimize ease of use. Although the 1999 final rule recognized the
importance of having the lower anchorages visible or marked with an
emblem signaling the presence and location of the anchorages, the final
rule was the first undertaking by any country to establish a universal
child restraint anchorage system independent of the vehicle belts.
Thus, in making the first step toward standardizing a child restraint
anchorage system, the agency only partially standardized the marking,
and did not regulate features of the vehicle seat relating to cushion
stiffness and other characteristics of the vehicle seat. For similar
reasons, NHTSA refrained from standardizing CRS features that might
affect compatibility, such as CRS size and mass.

New Information Improving Anchorage Systems

    New information from the University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute (UMTRI) has identified characteristics of the
vehicle seat that UMTRI has found to enhance the usability of child
restraint anchorage systems. In April 2012, UMTRI published a study
\11\ titled, ``LATCH Usability in Vehicles'' (hereinafter ``LATCH
Usability study''), that identified vehicle seat characteristics shown
to affect the quality of child restraint installations. UMTRI found
that the correct use of lower anchorages was associated with the
following features:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Klinich et al., ``LATCH Usability in Vehicles,'' UMTRI-
2012-7, April 2012. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Clearance angle'' greater than 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);
     ``attachment force'' of 178 Newtons (N) (40 pounds (lb))
or less (attachment force is the amount of force needed to attach a
lower anchorage connector); and,
     ``anchorage depth'' (location of the anchorage within the
seat bight) of less than 2 centimeters (cm).
    Further, improved designs in anchorage markings have been developed
by the International Standardization Organization (ISO) that can better
communicate to the consumer the location and presence of the lower
anchorages and tether anchorage, and further harmonize the safety
standard with those of other countries.
    Today's NPRM uses the information from UMTRI and ISO to propose
enhancements to the usability requirements in FMVSS No. 225.

Overview of Proposal

    Our ease of use improvements focus on reducing the physical effort
needed to attach a child restraint to the lower anchorages and to the
tether anchorage, and on improving how easily the anchorages can be
correctly identified and accessed by a consumer.
Ease of Using Lower Anchorages
    FMVSS No. 225's current location requirements for the lower
anchorage bars intend for the bars to be accessible, but some consumers
find it difficult to use the bars. We propose new requirements for the
bars to improve ease of use: a minimum clearance angle of 54 degrees, a
maximum attachment force of 178 N (40 lb), and a location limit of less
than 2 cm within the seat bight. These are the ease of use
specifications the UMTRI LATCH Usability study found to correlate with
correct child restraint installation by test subjects.
Ease of Using Tether Anchorages
    Standard 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) that enables the attachment of a standardized tether
hook. The standard 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, we propose the following requirements to make it
easier for consumers to recognize and reach the anchorage.
     We propose to amend FMVSS No. 225 to reduce the zone in
which a tether anchorage must be located, to prevent tether anchorages
from being placed deep under a vehicle seat.
     We propose to require tether anchorages to be accessible
without the need for any tools and without folding the seat back or
removing carpet or other vehicle components. (The 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 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.)
     Almost all tether anchorages are rigid metal bars, but
there are a few made from flexible webbing, which confuses some
consumers who are looking for a bar. We propose amending FMVSS No. 225
to require the tether anchorage to be a rigid bar.
     Some tether anchorages are too close to a structure, such
as a head restraint, to allow tightening of the tether strap. We
propose to specify a minimum 165 mm (6.5 in) distance from a reference
point on the vehicle seat to the tether anchorage so that adequate
clearance will be provided for tightening of the tether strap. We also
propose 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 newly-specified
clearance space around a tether anchorage.
Enhanced Ability To Identify Anchorages
    Standard No. 225 currently requires the lower anchorage bars either
to be visible or the vehicle seat back marked showing the location of
the bars. To improve consumers' ability to find and use lower
anchorages, we propose amending FMVSS No. 225 to require motor vehicles
to be marked with the ISO-developed mark near the location of each
lower anchorage bar, even if the lower anchorage is visible. Similarly,
we propose requiring each tether anchorage to be marked with the ISO-
developed mark for tether anchorages. In addition, we propose amending
FMVSS No. 213 to require the ISO mark on the lower anchorage connectors
(the components on the child restraint system that attach the child
restraint to the lower anchorages of a child restraint

anchorage system) and on the tether hook.\12\ We also propose to
require vehicle manufacturers to provide written information (e.g., in
vehicle owners' manuals) explaining the meaning of the ISO lower
anchorage bar and tether anchorage markings, and to require child
restraint manufacturers to explain (in the CRS user's manual) the
meaning of the ISO mark on the lower anchorage connectors and tether
hook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NHTSA is planning to develop new simplified education and
consumer information programs building on the requirements proposed
in this NPRM. Education efforts and consumer information programs
would be developed to teach consumers to look for the ISO-developed
marks in the vehicle to locate the lower anchorages and tether
anchorages in their vehicles and to ``match'' them to the ISO marks
on the CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rulemaking Goal

    The 2005 Decina study \13\ found that many consumers did not know
what child restraint anchorage systems were, that anchorages were
available in the vehicle, the importance of using the anchorages or how
to use them properly. We believe that as the requirements proposed
today make the anchorages more conspicuous and more clearly marked,
awareness should improve. With improved awareness, more consumers will
likely attempt to use the anchorage system.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Child Restraint Use Survey: LATCH Use and Misuse,''
supra.
    \14\ Field data show that use of child restraint anchorage
systems has noticeably increased since 2006. National Child
Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS), DOT HS 811 679, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811679.pdf, and ``A Look Inside American
Family Vehicles 2009-2010,'' Safe Kids USA (http://www.safekids.org/assets/docs/safety-basics/safety-tips-by-risk-area/sk-car-seat-report-2011.pdf). These data are discussed in Appendix A of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Decina study found that users who attempted to use child
restraint anchorage systems generally liked the systems. Drivers with
experience attaching a CRS using a child restraint anchorage system and
using a vehicle seat belt strongly preferred using the lower anchorages
over the seat belts. Moreover, the study also found that consumers were
more likely to install a CRS correctly using a child restraint
anchorage system than when a seat belt was used. NHTSA believes that as
consumers' awareness of child restraint anchorage systems increases,
more consumers will try them and more will use them. If the systems can
be made easier to use, more consumers will like and regularly use the
system compared to current usage.
    UMTRI's 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. Thus, we believe that if child restraint anchorage
systems can be made easier to use correctly, more consumers will
achieve a tight fit of the CRS in the vehicle. The tight fit of the CRS
will lead to reduced child head and torso excursions in motor vehicle
crashes, and fewer child head and torso injuries in crashes.

Estimated Costs and Benefits

    The agency estimates that the proposed requirements for improved
usability of child restraint anchorage systems 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 tether anchorages would have to be repositioned further from the
head restraint to meet the minimum strap wrap-around distance
requirement. A small number of vehicles that currently have webbing
loops for tether anchorages would need to be changed to have rigid
anchorage bars. The agency believes that these design modification are
minor and mainly concern the vehicle seat and not the vehicle
structure. NHTSA is proposing a 3-year lead time for complying with a
final rule, which, we believe, would provide sufficient time for
vehicle manufacturers to accommodate any redesign of the vehicle seat
in their normal course of manufacture without a cost increase.
    For child restraints, we estimate that approximately 30 percent of
forward-facing child restraints may need to have minor modification
made to the tether hardware assembly to meet the 165 mm (6.5 in)
maximum length requirement. We are proposing a 3-year lead time to meet
the requirement.
    The proposal requires all the lower anchorages and tether
anchorages to be marked with the ISO mark. We estimate the cost of ISO
marks for a set of lower anchorages to be $0.05 and that for the tether
anchorage to be $0.025. The total incremental cost of equipping all
child restraint anchorage systems with appropriate ISO marks is about
$0.58 million. The proposal also requires similar ISO marks on child
restraint anchorage connectors, for which the agency estimates an
incremental cost of $0.74 million. 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 $1.32 million.
    We believe that the new usability requirements would improve
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.

II. Statutory Mandate

    MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) incorporates Subtitle E, ``Child Safety
Standards.'' Subtitle E, Sec.  31502(a), requires that not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary 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.''
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 (Vehicle
Safety Act)].'' 15 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Sec.  31502(b)(2). That section also specifies that in
such case that an amendment does not meet the requirements and
considerations of Sec.  30111(a) and (b) of title 49, United States
Code, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress describing the
reasons for not prescribing such a standard. [Footnote added.]
    \16\ Another exception is in Sec.  31505, which specifies that
if the Secretary determines that any deadline for issuing a final
rule under this Act cannot be met, the Secretary shall provide
Congress with an explanation for why such deadline cannot be met and
establish a new deadline for that rule. [Footnote added.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has interpreted Sec.  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. This interpretation is based on the plain
meaning of the phrase ``improve the ease of use.'' We interpret
``improve'' to mean to enhance or increase the ease of use of
prevailing FMVSS No. 225 lower anchorages and tether anchorages, which,
in passenger cars and small MPVs, are present ``in all rear seat
seating positions.'' Our 2011 Priority Plan took this approach in
focusing on improving current tether anchorage locations and labeling
of anchorage locations. This NPRM satisfies the mandate by proposing
requirements that would 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 child restraint anchorage system.
    Furthermore, this document also requests comment on whether
additional lower anchorages and tether anchorages should be required in
vehicles. We request comment on the need for, and feasibility of,
additional child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages in
rear seating positions, particularly in the third row of vehicles with
three rows of seating. We also request comments on the merits and
feasibility of installing lower anchorages and tether anchorages in
vehicles now excluded from requirements to provide such anchorages.
    Section 31502 gives us discretion in determining whether a final
rule in this rulemaking is warranted. We anticipate issuing a final
rule unless an amendment ``does not meet the requirements and
considerations set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of section 30111 of
title 49, United States Code.'' \17\ The requirements and
considerations of Sec. Sec.  30111(a) and (b) apply to NHTSA's FMVSS
rulemaking under the Vehicle Safety Act. Under Sec.  30111(a), the
Secretary is authorized to prescribe FMVSSs that are practicable, meet
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms.
``Motor vehicle safety'' is defined in the Vehicle 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.'' Under Sec.
30111(b) of the Vehicle Safety Act, when prescribing such standards,
the Secretary must consider relevant available motor vehicle safety
information, consult with appropriate agencies, consider whether a
standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular
type of motor vehicle 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 accidents and deaths and
injuries resulting from traffic accidents. We understand MAP-21 as
directing us to determine, after initiating rulemaking, whether the
changes under consideration to FMVSS No. 225 meet the requirements and
considerations set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of 49 U.S.C Sec.
30111 and are feasible. We will make a decision about a final rule
after that assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Sec.  31502(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Efforts To Improve Vehicle/Child Restraint Compatibility and Ease
of Use of Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

    Following issuance of FMVSS No. 225, there have been several
efforts to improve the compatibility of child restraint anchorage
systems and CRSs, and the ease of using the systems.

a. ISO Rating System

    ISO developed a rating system and criteria to provide child
restraint and vehicle manufacturers tools for the assessment of the
usability of ISOFIX \18\ systems.\19\ The ISO approach evaluates and
rates the usability of a CRS's ISOFIX features, a vehicle's ISOFIX
system, and the interaction between the two. ISO also provides
consumers (parents and caregivers) with information to assist them in
selecting a CRS and vehicle with ISOFIX systems that are easy to use,
with the aim that the information will result in more correct
installations. (More information about the ISO draft standard is in
Appendix C to this preamble.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ISOFIX is a system, mostly used in Europe, for the
connection of child restraint systems to vehicles. The system has
two vehicle rigid anchorages, two corresponding rigid attachments on
the child restraint system and a means to limit the pitch rotation
of the child restraint system. While the ISOFIX system is not used
in the U.S., the system is very similar to the FMVSS No. 225 child
restraint anchorage system and therefore, the evaluation developed
by ISO is relevant to our work here.
    \19\ ``Road vehicles--Methods and criteria for usability
evaluation of child restraint systems and their interface with
vehicle anchor systems--Part 1: Vehicles and child restraint systems
equipped with ISOFIX anchors and attachments,'' (November 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. SAE Guidelines

    The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) developed a draft SAE
recommended practice entitled J2893, ``Guidelines for Implementation of
the Child Restraint Anchorage System in Motor Vehicles and Child
Restraint Systems.'' \20\ The document provides guidelines for vehicle
manufacturers to consider when designing characteristics of vehicle
lower and upper (tether) anchorages, and for CRS manufacturers for
corresponding features of CRS lower anchorage and tether connectors, so
that each product can be made more compatible with the other. SAE
developed tools and procedures for evaluating the child restraint
anchorage system hardware features in vehicles and on child restraints.
The guidelines assess whether the child restraint fixture can attach to
the lower anchorages, the force and clearance angles needed to attach
to the lower anchorages, the collinearity of the lower anchorages, the
marking of the anchorages with the ISO symbol, etc. (Appendix C to this
preamble has more information about the SAE guidelines.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The SAE J2893 recommended practice is designated as a
``work-in-progress'' by SAE and has not been finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. NCAP Vehicle-CRS Fit Program

    On February 25, 2011, NHTSA published a Federal Register document
requesting comment on the agency's plan to establish a new consumer
information program, as part of the agency's New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP), to improve compatibility between vehicles and child restraint
systems and the ease of using the systems. The contemplated program
involves vehicle manufacturers voluntarily providing NHTSA information
about which CRSs fit in specific vehicle models, and NHTSA, in turn,
posting this information on the NCAP Web site for consumers to use when
making purchasing decisions. This ``Vehicle-CRS Fit program,'' still
under consideration by NHTSA, is described in more detail in Appendix C
of this preamble.

d. UMTRI's LATCH Usability Study

1. Overview of the Study
    In 2012, UMTRI published a report entitled, ``LATCH Usability in
Vehicles,'' \21\ describing UMTRI's study to identify characteristics
of child restraint anchorage systems that make the anchorage system
easier to use. The study was conducted in three phases, the objectives
of which were to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Survey model year (MY) 2010-2011 vehicles to document
characteristics of child restraint anchorage systems in the current
vehicle fleet;
     Evaluate the proposed ISO 29061-1: 2010 rating system
(ratings for both the vehicle and the vehicle-to-child restraint
interaction), SAE draft J2893 recommended practice,\22\ and NHTSA's
proposed NCAP Vehicle-CRS Fit program to see if outcomes from those
programs are associated with quality installations by volunteer
subjects; and,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The SAE J2893 Version 1--Draft 7 was used for the study.
SAE J2893 is still under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Conduct volunteer tests for evaluating the quality of
child restraint

installations using vehicle features as the independent measures.
    In the first phase of the study, UMTRI measured the child restraint
anchorage system hardware and rear seat geometry of 98 top-selling MY
2010 and 2011 vehicles. The vehicles surveyed were those often used for
transporting children that also represented a wide range of different
child restraint anchorage system hardware. Included in the survey were
passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles (SUVs), and pickup
trucks. The vehicle measurements were based on procedures in the ISO
draft standard and the SAE draft recommended practice, and some
additional measures developed for the study, such as the depth of the
lower anchorages into the seat bight.
    In the second phase, UMTRI calculated the usability scores for each
vehicle in the survey using the protocols in ISO 29061-1: 2010,\23\ SAE
draft J2893,\24\ and NHTSA's February 2011 NCAP Vehicle-CRS fit program
under consideration. ISO ratings of vehicle child restraint anchorage
system usability ranged from 41 percent to 78 percent. UMTRI calculated
the ISO vehicle/child restraint interaction scores for 20 vehicles,
identifying vehicles with a range of vehicle features, and 7 child
restraints. ISO vehicle/child restraint interaction scores ranged from
14 percent to 86 percent. Vehicles assessed using the SAE draft
recommended practice met between 2 and all 10 of the recommendations.
UMTRI evaluated the proposed NHTSA Vehicle-CRS Fit program criteria at
one rear seating position (behind the driver's seat) for 12 vehicles
and 7 child restraints. The 7 CRSs selected represented a variety of
restraint types (rear facing infant seats, convertible seats,
combination seats and belt-positioning booster seats) and child
restraint anchorage connector features. Of the 24 pairings with 12
vehicles and two rear-facing convertibles, one installation met all of
NHTSA's proposed vehicle-CRS fit criteria. Twenty-three (23)
installations of the 24 vehicle/infant seat pairings and 45
installations of the 48 vehicle/forward-facing harness CRS pairings met
all of the proposed vehicle-CRS fit criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``Road vehicles--Methods and criteria for usability
evaluation of child restraint systems and their interface with
vehicle anchor systems--Part 1: Vehicles and child restraint systems
equipped with ISOFIX anchors and attachments,'' (November 2010).
    \24\ The SAE draft recommended practice does not involve a
rating system; therefore, UMTRI developed a grade based on how many
of the ten guidelines were met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the third phase, UMTRI conducted volunteer testing using 36
subjects, 12 vehicles, and 3 CRS models to see if outcomes from the
ISO, SAE and NCAP programs are associated with quality installations
(correct installations) of child restraints by the subjects. The subset
of 12 vehicles was chosen to provide a variety of child restraint
anchorage system hardware characteristics. The 3 CRSs selected in this
phase were the Safety First Alpha Omega Elite, Chicco KeyFit, and Graco
SnugRide 30.
    The study considered a ``correct'' installation to meet the
following criteria:
    (1) Tight installation--Child restraint did not move more than 1
inch laterally or fore/aft when tested with a moderate pull/push
applied at the restraint belt path.
    (2) Correct use of lower anchors (if applicable)--Child restraint
connectors were fully engaged with the correct vehicle hardware in the
correct orientation and the CRS belt webbing connecting to the child
restraint anchorages was flat.
    (3) Correct use of seat belt (if applicable)--Seat belt was routed
through the correct belt path, was not twisted, and was buckled and
locked correctly.
    (4) Correct use of tether anchorage (if applicable)--Tether hook
attached to the correct vehicle hardware in the correct orientation,
routed around or under the head restraint as directed by the vehicle
manual, and tightened so that there was 10 mm (0.39 in) or less of
slack (measured by pinching the slack and measuring the height of the
loop).
    (5) Correct installation angle--Installation angle was considered
correct for rear-facing installations if the restraint indicator was at
the correct level, and was considered correct for forward-facing
installations if the recline foot was in the forward-facing position.
2. Three Seat Characteristics Were Well Correlated With Correct Use
    Using a series of mixed-model logistic regression models with
various lower anchorage characteristics assessed in the study, UMTRI
identified three features of lower anchorages that the volunteer
testing showed were well correlated to the correct installation of
CRSs. These were: Clearance angle, attachment force, and anchorage
depth. UMTRI stated that the odds of correct CRS installation when the
child restraint anchorage system met the minimum criterion for
clearance angle, attachment force, and lower anchorage depth are 5, 9,
and 7 times higher, respectively. UMTRI showed that subjects were 19
times more likely to correctly install the CRS if the vehicle met all
three usability criteria than if none of the criteria were met. Using
multi-variate regression analysis of the volunteer data, UMTRI found
that 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.

A. Clearance Angle

    Clearance angle refers to the clearance around a lower anchorage
from parts that interfere with the ability to maneuver the CRS lower
anchorage connector. The interfering parts can include part of the
vehicle seat structure or excessively stiff seat cushion material.
Clearance angle is measured by a tool (specified in the SAE draft J2893
recommended practice) that attaches to the lower anchorages. In UMTRI's
procedure a vertical force of 66.7 N (15 lb) \25\ is applied to the
tool. The angle the tool achieves when that force is applied is the
``clearance angle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The 6.8 kg (15 lb) force application is the same as that in
the SAE J2893 protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UMTRI determined the performance limits for clearance angle by
analyzing the vehicle characteristics and rate of correct installation
from the volunteer tests. Based on the user trial data shown in Figure
1 below, UMTRI determined that a clearance angle greater than 54
degrees will increase the likelihood of correct CRS installation.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.000

B. Attachment Force

    Attachment force refers to the force needed to attach a child
restraint's lower anchorage connector to a lower anchorage in a
vehicle. UMTRI measured the force required to attach a CRS connector to
a vehicle lower anchorage using a force gauge specified in SAE draft
J2893. The tool is similar in shape and size to various CRS lower
anchorage connectors in the market and to the connectors used on the
Child Restraint Fixture and the Static Force Application Device 2
(SFAD2) of FMVSS No. 225. A force gauge in the tool measures the force
required to fully engage the CRS connector to a lower anchorage in a
vehicle. A stiff seat cushion and/or obstructions surrounding a lower
anchorage may increase the attachment force.
    Based on the data shown in Figure 2 below, UMTRI determined that an
attachment force less than 178 N (40 lb) has a high likelihood of
correct CRS installation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.001

C. Anchorage Depth

    Anchorage depth refers to how deeply the lower anchorages are
embedded in a vehicle seat (usually in the seat bight). UMTRI developed
a simple tool that easily measures lower anchorage depth. The tool
consists of a hook-type CRS connector which is marked every 2 cm.\26\
Lower anchorages that are set deeper into the seat bight are more
difficult to locate, identify, and use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ UMTRI's tool was marked with different colored electrical
tape at 2 cm intervals from the hook. When the tool was hooked onto
the lower anchorage of the vehicle, the different colors of tape
were exposed. For example, if the lower anchorage were exposed and
not recessed in the seat bight at all, all colors in the hook were
visible.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.002

    Based on the data shown in Figure 3 above, UMTRI determined that a
lower anchorage depth less than 2 cm has a significantly higher rate of
correct lower anchorage use than for anchorage depths greater than 2
cm.
    UMTRI found that, while clearance angle, attachment force and
anchorage depth are important, due to the correlation of the three
factors it was not possible to truly identify their separate
contributions to prediction of correct CRS installation. UMTRI believed
that lower anchorage designs in vehicles should consider all three
characteristics to improve rates of correct installation of child
restraints.

IV. UMTRI's Assessment of the ISO, SAE, and NCAP Programs

    As part of UMTRI's LATCH Usability study,\27\ UMTRI evaluated
vehicles using the draft ISO standard 29061-1:2010 and the derived SAE
grade \28\ and found no correlation between usability ratings and
correct installation of child restraints in the vehicles in user
trials. Results indicated that the ISO vehicle rating, the ISO vehicle/
child restraint interaction rating and the derived SAE grade showed no
correlation with rates of the volunteers' correct CRS installation
using the lower anchorages (see Figure 4 below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ LATCH Usability study, 2012, supra.
    \28\ SAE recommend practice is not a rating system; therefore,
UMTRI developed a grade based on how many of the ten guidelines were
met.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.003

    UMTRI also evaluated \29\ NHTSA's proposed Vehicle-CRS Fit program
criteria using 12 vehicles and 7 child restraints. The user data showed
that, among vehicle and child restraint combinations that would be
considered compatible under the proposed criteria, only 16 percent were
correctly installed by the volunteers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. NHTSA's Preference Is the UMTRI Approach

    NHTSA has evaluated the draft ISO standard and the SAE draft
recommended practice and concludes that neither approach would likely
improve the usability of child restraint anchorage systems as
effectively as the specifications proposed in today's NPRM. The ISO
draft standard primarily rates vehicles and does not directly mandate
improvements to the usability of child restraint anchorage systems.
Further, as discussed above, UMTRI evaluated vehicles using the draft
ISO standard 29061-1:2010 and found no correlation between usability
ratings and correct installation of child restraints in the vehicles in
user trials.
    The draft SAE recommended practice J2893 would also be limited
because it is only a guideline and does not mandate improved usability.
In addition, as noted above, UMTRI evaluated the SAE derived grade from
the 10 guidelines and found no correlation between the SAE derived
grade and correct installation of child restraints in the vehicles in
user trials.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the amendments resulting from today's NPRM would be
more effective in improving ease of use and the fit of child restraints
in vehicles than NHTSA's proposed Vehicle-CRS fit program. The fit
program only examines the fit of a small number of specific CRSs
selected by the vehicle manufacturer for a specific vehicle model.
Today's NPRM would ensure a more universal compatibility between
vehicles and child restraints. The Vehicle-CRS fit program would be a
voluntary program, so vehicle manufacturers have the option of not
providing NHTSA any information about the fit of child restraints in
their vehicles. In contrast, the changes resulting from this NPRM would
be mandated and universal for all vehicles and all child restraints.
The changes made to vehicle seats resulting from this rulemaking would
make all child restraints easier to use and fit tightly on vehicle
seats. In addition, UMTRI evaluated the NCAP Vehicle-CRS fit proposal
and found that volunteers in user trials had a low rate of correctly
installing CRSs even when the CRSs were ones meeting the NCAP program's
``fit'' criteria.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposal To Improve Lower Anchorage Usability

    This NPRM proposes amendments to improve the three features of
lower anchorages--clearance angle, attachment force, and anchorage
depth--that were shown to have a positive impact on correct child
restraint installations in user trials in UMTRI's LATCH Usability
study. NHTSA has reviewed the UMTRI study and tentatively concludes
that the features have been reasonably shown to have a significant
bearing on correct installations. Also, lower anchorages meeting the
proposed requirements for clearance angle, attachment force, and
anchorage depth appear feasible.\32\ The UMTRI procedures for measuring
clearance angle and attachment force are similar to those in the draft
SAE J2893 recommended practice which were developed with industry input
and participation.\33\ NHTSA has evaluated the procedures in 10
vehicles (MY 2005-2013) and they appear objective and repeatable. The
agency made minor modifications to the measurement tools to enhance
their ease of use and to further improve the repeatability of
measurements.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ We are also proposing improved marking of child restraint
anchorages and child restraint anchorage connectors to improve the
ease of use of child restraint anchorage systems.
    \33\ We note that General Motors made the suggestion that NHTSA
explore SAE's draft guidelines in its comments at the 2007 LATCH
public meeting.
    \34\ NHTSA Technical Report, ``Evaluation of LATCH Usability
Procedure,'' which is in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments to NHTSA's 2007 LATCH public meeting on child restraint
anchorage system usability included many complaints about the
difficulty of attaching lower anchorage connectors to lower anchorages
because of interference from surrounding stiff cushions, fabric/leather
or buckles. There were also observations about the difficulty of using
the lower anchorages because they are often embedded in the

seat bight. It appears that the proposed changes would sufficiently
address these problems.
    We tentatively conclude that this NPRM would ultimately increase
child safety. The NCRUSS \35\ data show that a loose CRS installation
comprises one of the five most significant mistakes consumers make in
the field when installing child restraints. We wish to reduce loose CRS
installations in the field since a loose installation could result in
higher excursions of the child and CRS during a crash and a greater
risk of injury due to the child's possible contact with vehicle
interior structures, as compared to correct (tight) installations. We
believe that if child restraint anchorage systems can be made easier to
use correctly, then correct (tight) installations will increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Clearance Angle

    Clearance angle relates to the clearance around a lower anchorage
from interfering parts that can make it difficult to maneuver and
attach a CRS lower anchorage connector. We believe that a clearance
angle requirement would facilitate easier attachment of a CRS lower
anchorage connector by preventing interference from surrounding
components.
    ``Clearance angle'' is a criterion included in draft SAE J2893, and
the tool we would use to measure the clearance angle was based on a
tool developed by the SAE in draft J2893 (Version 1--Draft 7).\36\ The
tool, illustrated in Figure 5 below, includes a load cell with a handle
to measure the applied vertical force on the tool and a potentiometer
to measure the angle with respect to the horizontal achieved by the
tool during the force application. In our proposed test procedure, the
tool would be attached to a lower anchorage. A vertical force of 66.7 N
(15 lb) is applied to the tool. The angle the tool achieves (with
respect to the horizontal) when that force is applied is the
``clearance angle.'' We propose to amend FMVSS No. 225 to adopt a
clearance angle requirement of not less than 54 degrees, as supported
by the findings of the UMTRI LATCH Usability study. The requirement
would apply to each lower anchorage in a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ UMTRI used this measurement tool in its LATCH Usability
Study and measured the applied vertical force and the resulting
clearance angle using a force gauge and an inclinometer,
respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.004

    We note that draft SAE J2893 specifies that the clearance angle
should be greater than 75 degrees. We have differed from that draft
specification because the UMTRI LATCH Usability study has user trial
data to show that a clearance angle greater than 54 degrees is
sufficient to increase the likelihood of correct CRS installation. We
are not aware of similar user data to support the SAE target of 75
degrees.
    Our proposed 66.7 N (15 lb) force application is the same as that
in the draft SAE J2893 protocol. We believe that the force represents a
low force that an adult can easily apply. A NHTSA study to determine
the force that able-bodied adults could apply to open emergency exit
windows found that this force ranged from 66.7 N (15 lb) to 533.7 N
(120 lb) with a mean of 244.6 N (55 lb).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Attachment Force

    ``Attachment force'' refers to the force needed to attach a child
restraint lower anchorage connector to a lower anchorage. After
considering the UMTRI LATCH Usability study, we propose to amend FMVSS
No. 225 to require child restraint anchorage systems to be manufactured
such that the attachment force needed to attach an attachment force
tool to the lower anchorage must be less than 178 N (40 lb). UMTRI's

volunteer subjects study indicates that an attachment force less than
178 N (40 lb) has a high likelihood of correct CRS installation.
    The attachment force tool, illustrated in Figure 6 below, is based
on the tool specified in SAE draft J2893 (Version 1 Draft 7) and which
was used in the UMTRI LATCH Usability study. The end of the tool is
similar in shape and size to various ``push-on'' CRS lower anchorage
connectors in the market and to the connectors used on the SFAD2 of
FMVSS No. 225. In order to improve the repeatability of the
measurements obtained by the tool, the agency modified the tool used in
the UMTRI LATCH Usability study as follows. A trigger switch was
included to determine when the tool is fully engaged to a lower
anchorage in a vehicle. A button load cell in a push handle was added
to measure the force needed to fully engage the tool to the anchorage.
Finally, a potentiometer was included to measure the approach angle of
the tool with respect to the horizontal.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.005

    We note that draft SAE J2893 specifies that the attachment force
should be less than 75 N (16.9 lb), which is more stringent than that
proposed in this NPRM. We are proposing a 178 N (40 lb) limit because
it is supported by the findings of UMTRI's LATCH Usability study
showing the correlation of the limit with correct CRS installation. We
are not aware of such data supporting the SAE limit under
consideration.
    There is also a slight difference between the draft SAE J2893
procedure and UMTRI's procedure regarding how the measurement is taken.
The SAE draft procedure specifies that, when taking the measurement,
the attachment force tool approaches the lower anchorage at an angle
near zero degrees (i.e., it is parallel to the seat bottom cushion
surface). UMTRI found that it is not possible to attach the tool to the
lower anchorages in most vehicles when it is held parallel to the seat
bottom cushion. UMTRI modified the SAE protocol for measuring the
attachment force such that the force is measured at the angle (from 0
to 45 degrees) to the horizontal producing the lowest force value. In
addition to making it possible to attach the tool to the lower
anchorages, UMTRI believed that the 0 to 45 degrees range of angles for
attaching the measurement tool to the lower anchorages better
represents how a parent would attach a CRS lower anchorage connector to
the lower anchorages compared to the SAE method. NHTSA tentatively
agrees with UMTRI's conclusions and has proposed the 0 to 45 degree
range in this NPRM.

c. Anchorage Depth

    Anchorage depth refers to how deeply the lower anchorages are
embedded in the vehicle seat (usually in the seat bight or seat back).
UMTRI's LATCH Usability study found that an anchorage depth of less
than 2 cm within the seat bight is associated with a significantly
higher rate of correct lower anchorage use than anchorage depths
greater than or equal to 2 cm. NHTSA proposes a requirement that each
lower anchorage must have an anchorage depth of less than 2 cm, as
measured by a specially-designed compliance tool (the tool is
illustrated in Figure 7, below). The tool incorporates a hook-type CRS
connector. The distance 2 cm from the backside of a lower anchorage bar
when the connector is attached to a lower anchorage is marked on the
tool (as shown in Figure 8, below). In a compliance test, the tool
would be attached to a lower anchorage. The 2 cm 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's manipulating the seat
cushions in any way.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.006

    We tentatively conclude that the proposed anchorage depth
requirement would make the requirement in S9.2.2(a) of FMVSS No. 225
unnecessary, so we propose deleting S9.2.2(a). S9.2.2(a) specifies that
the lower anchorages must be located less than 70 mm (2.75 in) behind
the rearmost point at the bottom plane of the CRF while the CRF is
pressed rearward against the seat back with a horizontal force of 100 N
(22.4 lb). The purpose of S9.2.2(a) is to ensure that the lower
anchorages are not deeply recessed into the seat bight. We tentatively
conclude that the proposed requirement for anchorage depth takes the
place of S9.2.2(a) by ensuring the lower anchorages are not deeply
recessed. The proposed 2 cm (0.8 in) limit on anchorage depth would not
permit lower anchorages to be as deeply recessed into the vehicle seat
as permitted by S9.2.2(a). The UMTRI volunteer study showed that
accessibility of the lower anchorages--and correct CRS installation--is
better determined using anchorage depth than the current requirement in
S9.2.2(a).
    On the other hand, we have tentatively determined that S9.2.2(b)
continues to be needed and should be retained even if a limit on
anchorage depth is adopted. S9.2.2(b) specifies that the lower
anchorages must be located more than 120 mm (4.7 in) behind the
SgRP.\38\ Its intent is to ensure that the lower anchorages are not so
far forward so as to cause discomfort to occupants not in CRSs or pose
an unreasonable risk of injury in rear impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ SgRP (seating reference point) is the unique design H-point
as defined in SAE Recommended Practice J1100, ``Motor Vehicle
Dimensions,'' revised June1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe the requirement in S9.2.2(b) does not conflict with the
proposed anchorage depth requirement. UMTRI's survey of 98 MY 2010-2011
vehicles showed that the seat bight of the surveyed vehicles was at
least 140 mm (1.5 in) from the estimated SgRP, as shown in Figure 9.
(UMTRI's measurement referenced the H-point, which with regard to rear
seats that do not move, is at the same location as the SgRP.) The
proposed anchorage depth requirement specifies that the anchorage has
to be less than 2 cm deep into the seat bight. Lower anchorages can be
positioned less than 2 cm deep into the seat bight and still meet
S9.2.2(b).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.007

d. Estimated Rate of Current Compliance

    UMTRI's survey of 98 MY 2010-2011 vehicles \39\ showed that 9
percent met none of the three provisions, 31 percent met one provision,
37 percent met two provisions, and 21 percent met all three provisions
for lower anchorages. Ninety percent met the attachment force provision
(<178 N (40 lb)), 58 percent met the clearance angle provision (>54
degrees) and 28 percent met the anchorage depth (<2 cm (0.8 in))
provision, as shown in Figure 10 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ UMTRI LATCH Usability study, supra.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.008

    Table 1, below, shows the percentages of vehicles within ranges of
the proposed attachment force, clearance angle, and anchorage depth
requirements.

 Table 1--Percentage of Vehicles (From UMTRI's Survey of 98 MY 2010-11 Vehicles) Versus Range of Lower Anchorage
                                   Attachment Force, Clearance Angle and Depth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment force                            Clearance angle
                                            Anchorage depth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<178N............................       89.5%  >54 degrees.........       58.0%  <1.9 cm............       28.5%
178-311N.........................        5.2%  44-54 degrees.......       23.6%  2-3.9cm............       27.5%
312-645N.........................        5.2%  35-43 degrees.......       10.7%  4-5.9 cm...........       40.8%
                                               20-34 degrees.......        7.5%  6-7.9 cm...........        3.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's evaluation of 10 MY 2005-2013 vehicles \40\ resulted in
attachment force measurements at 27 lower anchorage positions, and
clearance angle and lower anchorage depth measurements at 31 lower
anchorage positions. The attachment force measurements were all well
below 178 N (40 lb). Seventeen of 31 anchorage positions had clearance
angles greater than 54 degrees, and 16 of the 31 anchorage positions
had an anchorage depth less than 2 cm. Five vehicles met the proposed
clearance angle criterion and 5 met the proposed anchorage depth
criterion at all lower anchorage positions tested. Three of the 10
vehicles tested met all 3 proposed usability criteria for lower
anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NHTSA Technical Report, ``Evaluation of LATCH Usability
Procedure,'' which is in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Proposal To Improve Tether Anchorage Usability

    FMVSS No. 225 specifies where tether anchorages may be located, but
consumers are still having difficulty finding, identifying, accessing,
and using the tether anchorages. Some tether anchorages have been
located deep under the seat (the seat would have to be folded over to
access the anchorage) or under a carpet. Some tether anchorages are
located too close to the seat head restraint where there is not enough
space for the CRS tether strap to be tightened. Some tether anchorage
configurations are differently configured from those typically found in
vehicles, e.g., they consist of a webbing loop rather than a rigid bar.
To improve the ease of use of tether anchorages, we propose the
following requirements.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Except for the element relating to set-back of the
anchorage, UMTRI's LATCH Usability study did not address ease of use
of tether anchorages.
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Limit the Zone

    FMVSS No. 225 specifies that tether anchorages must be located
within the shaded zone shown in Figures 3 through 7 of FMVSS No. 225
for the designated seating position (DSP) for which the anchorage is
installed. The allowable zone encompasses a wide area which 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. This
place is the forward-most edge of the area under the vehicle seat
defined by the intersection of the torso line reference plane (defined
by the SAE J826 two-dimensional drafting template) and the floor pan.
    We propose to amend Figures 3 through 7 of the standard to disallow
tether anchorages from being placed deep under the seat. Specifically,
the agency is proposing that the forward-most edge of the allowable
tether anchorage zone represented by the shaded area in Figure 3 of
FMVSS No. 225 be moved rearward to a position defined by the
intersection of the vehicle floor with a plane that is parallel to the
torso line reference plane and which passes through the rearmost point
of the bottom of the seat at its centerline. We note that 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 would have little or no impact on current
vehicle designs. However, we tentatively believe the amendment is
needed to prevent these designs from coming back into the fleet.
    NHTSA evaluated vehicle fleet data to find where tether anchorages
were typically located. We reviewed combined data from a NHTSA survey
\42\ of 24 MY 2010 vehicles and the UMTRI LATCH Usability study \43\ of
98 MY 2010-2011 vehicles. The data indicate that the most common tether
anchorage locations are the seat back (41 percent) and the package
shelf (37 percent). Tether anchorage locations on the seat back are
typical of MPVs and trucks, while the package shelf location is
characteristic of passenger cars. Tether anchorages located on the back
wall of the occupant compartment (8 percent) are seen only in pickup
trucks. Less common tether anchorage locations are the roof (6 percent)
(often found in SUVs, station wagons, and some center seats of
passenger cars), the floor (4 percent) and under the seat \44\ (3
percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Aram, M.L., Rockwell, T., ``Vehicle Rear Seat Study-
Technical Report,'' NHTSA, 2012. A copy of the report is in the
docket.
    \43\ Supra.
    \44\ These anchorages are accessible without folding the seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In current vehicles, the tether anchorages located on the seat back
and on the package shelf (the two most common locations) are mostly
centered or slightly off-center from the DSP, as depicted in Figure 11
below. However, in vehicles with a cargo area or another seating row
behind the seating position with the tether anchorage (such as station
wagons and MPVs), and vehicles without a cargo area contiguous with the
seating position (such as pickup trucks), the tether anchorage are
often installed on the roof, floor, back wall or under the seat.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.009

    We considered but decided against further limiting the zones in
Figures 3 through 7 of FMVSS No. 225. We are mindful that, when
determining tether anchorage locations, vehicle manufacturers must
consider the strength of the structure to which the tether anchorage is
affixed. They also have to consider 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. Thus, some flexibility is needed in
locating the anchorages. Moreover, as explained below, those atypical
locations do not appear to pose a safety problem.
    We performed sled tests using different fore-aft and lateral tether
anchorage locations and found no difference in CRS performance when the
CRSs were tethered at different locations at extreme points within the
allowable zone.\45\ In the evaluation, we conducted a series of nine
frontal impact sled tests using the FMVSS No. 213 test protocol to
assess the effect of tether anchorage location on dummy kinematics and
injury outcomes. One forward-facing child restraint was used with a
Hybrid III 3-year-old (HIII-3C) dummy in each test configuration. The
lower anchorages were spaced 280 mm (11 in) apart. The tether anchorage
was positioned at various locations to replicate the vehicle seat back,
roof, and package shelf above and behind the seat bight (see Table 2
below). At each of the tether anchorage configurations, the lateral
position of the tether anchorage was also varied from the center to 150
mm (5.9 in) and 300 mm (11.8 in) to the right of center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 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. A copy of
the report is in the docket for this NPRM.

           Table 2--Tether Anchorage Locations From Seat Bight
    [Tether anchorage locations from FMVSS No. 213 bench seat bight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Aft    Above
                                                           (cm)    (cm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Package Shelf...........................................     650     585
Seat back...............................................     280     210
Roof....................................................     550    1070
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results showed that changing the tether anchorage location did
not significantly affect the injury outcomes of the HIII-3C dummy in
these tests. Overall, the head injury criterion (HIC) measured in a 36
millisecond timeframe (HIC36) ranged from 366 to 585 for the various
tether anchorage locations and was significantly lower than the
performance limit of 1000 (see Figure 12, below). For each of the
various lateral positions of the tether anchorage on the seat back, the
package shelf, and the roof, the dummy injury measures (HIC36, chest
acceleration, and dummy excursions) were similar and significantly
lower than the injury assessment reference values of FMVSS No. 213.
    For illustration purposes, HIC36 was the only injury criterion used
in the following graphs; however the full data (including chest
accelerations and excursions) can be found in the docketed technical
report.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.010

    The load distribution on the lower anchorages and tether anchorages
vary depending on whether the tether anchorage is located on the
package shelf, seat back, or roof, due to the length of the tether.
However, varying the lateral location of the tether anchorage in each
of these general locations (package shelf, seat back or roof),
generated similar peak loads for the lower anchorages and tether
anchorage despite the center or side locations of each tether anchorage
site (see Figure 13, below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.011

    These results suggest that there is not an unreasonable safety risk
posed by locating the tether anchorage at the lateral extreme points of
the allowable zone. Thus, we tentatively conclude that retaining the
zones depicted in Figures 3 to 7 of FMVSS No. 225, except to disallow
the area under a vehicle seat, appropriately balances safety, ease of
use, and design flexibility.

b. Anchorage Must Be Accessible

    The agency proposes 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, 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 indicting the presence of the tether
anchorage underneath. We also propose to require the anchorage to be
accessible without the use of any tools, including the use of a
screwdriver or coin.

c. Standardized Configuration

    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. The webbing loop is so different
from the conventional metal bar design that consumers have difficulty
identifying them as tether anchorages.\46\ 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 with a
pencil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ This issue was brought to NHTSA's attention by child
passenger safety technicians who perform child restraint system
checks across the country and teach/assist parents in installing
CRSs properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To increase the ease of use of tether anchorages, we propose
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 this NPRM is to increase the
standardization of child restraint anchorage system features, because
we believe doing so increases consumers' familiarity with the anchorage
systems and will increase the ease of using the systems, particularly
when coupled with education efforts that provide a simple and uniform
message. The webbing loop design differs considerably from the
appearance of a typical tether anchorage. Even if consumers become more
aware of the importance of tether use, they may still fail to use a
tether anchorage because they do not recognize the webbing loop as a
tether anchorage. 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 agency is seeking comment on whether further standardization of
the tether anchorage should be pursued to make the tether anchorage a
more recognizable vehicle feature. The agency has tentatively decided
not to specify dimensions for the tether anchorage, to give
manufacturers some design flexibility in meeting FMVSS No. 225's
strength requirements. We request comment on the issue.

d. Clearance Around the Tether Anchorage

    This NPRM proposes requirements to make it easier for a consumer to
attach a child restraint tether hook to a tether anchorage and tighten
the tether strap. We propose to amend FMVSS No. 225 to require a 165 mm
(6.5 in) minimum distance from a tether anchorage to a reference point
on the vehicle DSP for which the tether anchorage is installed.
    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 for which the anchorage is installed. 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),\47\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ R-point as defined in SAE J787b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The UMTRI LATCH Usability study \48\ found that under current FMVSS
No. 225, tether anchorages can be located too close to the head
restraint, top of the seat back, or the tether attachment point on a
CRS, resulting in insufficient clearance space to tighten the CRS
tether strap. UMTRI reviewed the ``tether hardware assembly,'' which
consists of the tether hook and hardware to tighten and loosen the
tether strap, on 21 child restraints made by 11 different CRS
manufacturers and found the tether hardware assembly to range 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). UMTRI
suggests that having tether anchorages on a package shelf or behind the
seat back at a distance of at least 165 mm (6.5 in) rearward or below
the back of the head restraint or top of the seat back (if no head
restraint is present) would provide better clearance for attaching the
tether hook of a CRS and tightening the strap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the UMTRI LATCH Usability study and tentatively
agree that specifying a minimum 165 mm (6.5 in) distance from the
tether anchorage to a reference point on the vehicle seat would improve
the ease of use of tether anchorages. The clearance would allow
tightening of tether straps in most vehicles without experiencing
interference from other structures, such as the head restraint. The
reference point on the vehicle seat, which we have designated ``SB,''
would 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 \49\
from the ``V-point'' to the tether anchorage. 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. The agency believes
both the V- and W-point could have been used for determining the
vehicle seat reference point, SB, but we selected the V-point to define
the reference point because it would encompass both low-mounted and
high-mounted tether straps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Strap wrap-around line is the nonlinear path traversed by a
string connecting two points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To improve compatibility between vehicles and CRSs, we also propose
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) must be no longer than
165 mm (6.5 in). We propose this limit so that all CRS tether straps
will be able to be tightened given the minimum tether anchorage
distance from the SB reference point.
    The UMTRI LATCH Usability study found that the length of the tether
hardware assembly of the 21 child restraints it reviewed ranged from
102 to 184 mm (4 to 7.2 in). UMTRI estimated that about 30 percent of
CRS models might need tether hardware assembly changes to meet the 165
mm (6.5 in) limit. We do not believe limiting the length of the tether
hardware assembly would be overly burdensome for CRS manufacturers,
since the assembly appears to consist of simple parts. Comments are
requested on this issue.

VIII. Conspicuity and Identification of Anchorages

    To improve the ease with which consumers find lower anchorages and
tether anchorages in the vehicle, we propose amending FMVSS No. 225 to
improve conspicuity and identification of the anchorages. (In the next
section, we propose complementary requirements amending FMVSS No. 213
to improve conspicuity and identification of the CRS connectors.)

a. Marking Lower Anchorages

    FMVSS No. 225 (S9.5) currently requires lower anchorage bars to be
visible, or the vehicle seat marked, to alert the consumer to the
presence of the anchorages and to assist consumers in locating the
lower anchorages. If the vehicle seat is marked, the current marking
requirement is for a circle not less than 13 mm (0.51 in) in diameter,
located within a specified distance from the horizontal centerline of
each lower anchorage. The circle may be either solid or open, and may
be with or without words, symbols or pictograms, but if a word, symbol
or pictogram is used, its meaning must be explained in the vehicle's
owner's manual.
    Decina's 2005 survey \50\ indicated that many consumers do not
recognize that the lower anchorage bars are for installing child
restraints or do not know that the marks indicate the presence of the
lower anchorages. The survey showed that 55 percent of consumers who
did not use lower anchorages to install a CRS, cited their lack of
knowledge--not knowing what the anchorages were, that they were
available in the vehicle, the importance of using them, or how to
properly use them--as the reason for not using them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ ``Child Restraint Use Survey: LATCH Use and Misuse,''
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since currently not all lower anchorages are required to have
markings, and since the marks, when provided, often differ in
appearance from one vehicle model to another, current education
campaigns rely on the vehicle's written instructions (typically the
owner's manual) to inform the consumer of the anchorage locations. This
is likely one reason for the consumers' lack of knowledge regarding the
location of the lower and tether anchorages, since consumers' use of
the owner's manual is low.
    We propose to amend FMVSS No. 225 to require all vehicles to bear a
standardized mark, developed by ISO as a voluntary standard,\51\ at the
location of each lower anchorage bar, regardless of whether the
anchorage bar is visible. The mark shows where the bar is located and
identifies the bar as a lower anchorage. The mark must be a circle not
less than 13 mm (0.51 in) in diameter located as specified in
S9.5(a)(3) of FMVSS No. 225. The mark is shown below in Figure 14. We
also propose to require manufacturers to include an explanation of the
meaning of the lower anchorages markings in written information (e.g.,
in the vehicle owner's manual, if one is provided).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ ISO 13216-1:1999 ``Road vehicles--Anchorages in vehicles
and attachments to anchorages for child restraint systems.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.012

    The symbol may be shown in mirror image, and the color of the
symbol is at the option of the manufacturer. The symbol may be
embossed.
    A number of commenters to the 2007 LATCH public meeting believed
that the conspicuity and identification of child restraint anchorages
should be improved. They suggested adopting the ISO symbol to mark all
child restraint anchorage systems in order to standardize the markings
and help the caregiver identify the anchorages.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ E.g., in comments to the 2007 LATCH Public Meeting, GM
raised the merits of an industry agreement to label all tether
anchorages with an anchorage symbol and all lower anchorages with an
ISO lower anchorage symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We tentatively agree that adopting a standardized symbol would
help. Requiring marks for all lower anchorages (regardless of whether
the anchorages are visible) would improve conspicuity and
identification of the anchorages. In addition, standardized anchorage
marks would help in the development of a consistent and simple
education message to improve awareness of child restraint anchorage
systems and correct identification of the anchorages. Having the
standardized markings may help the ISO symbols become a recognizable
icon to consumers and may help simplify consumer information. A
simplified message using the consistent marks could increase use of
child restraint anchorage systems and child restraints generally,
reduce installation errors, and ultimately reduce risk of injuries and
fatalities.
    The ISO mark has already been adopted by a majority of vehicle
manufacturers. NHTSA surveyed 24 MY 2010 vehicles \53\ to gather data
on rear seat characteristics, and included data on the vehicles' child
restraint anchorage systems, such as the locations of the systems, how
they were configured, and manufacturers'

recommendations for using the systems. Data on vehicles' child
restraint anchorage systems in 98 top-selling MY 2010-2011 vehicles is
also available from the UMTRI LATCH Usability study.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Aram, M.L., Rockwell, T., ``Vehicle Rear Seat Study-
Technical Report,'' NHTSA, 2012, which is in the docket for this
NPRM.
    \54\ ``LATCH Usability in Vehicles,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA analyzed the data from the agency's survey and from the UMTRI
LATCH Usability study to learn how vehicle manufacturers design and
mark the lower anchorages in current vehicles. The combined survey data
of 122 vehicles showed that 34 percent of the vehicles had visible
lower anchorages, 17 percent had lower anchorages with some cover
(slits, doors or flaps), and all other vehicles had anchorages embedded
in the seat bight). Also, 18 percent of the surveyed vehicles had no
marks on the lower anchorages because the anchorages were visible, 76
percent were marked with the ISO symbol, and 6 percent were marked but
without the ISO symbol.

b. Marking Tether Anchorages

    FMVSS No. 225 currently does not require tether anchorages to be
marked with any symbol identifying them as such. We propose amending
FMVSS No. 225 to require the vehicle to bear a standardized mark, also
developed by ISO,\55\ at the location of each tether anchorage. The
purpose of the marking requirement would be to increase consumer
awareness of the existence of tether anchorages and to facilitate
consumer education efforts. The mark shows the location of the tether
anchorage and identifies the anchorage. Either of two ISO labeling
symbols may be used (see Figure 15, below). Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (CMVSS) No. 210.1, ``User-friendly tether anchorages for
restraint systems,'' already requires vehicles to be labeled with one
of the ISO tether labeling symbols. We propose to require the tether
anchorage mark to be not less than 20 mm (0.8) in height.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ ISO 13216-1:1999 ``Road vehicles--Anchorages in vehicles
and attachments to anchorages for child restraint systems.'' The ISO
standard specifies that the tether anchorage symbol has to appear on
a cover, if a cover is used to hide the tether anchorage.
    \56\ This is the same dimensions for the tether anchorage
markings specified in CMVSS No. 210.1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.013

    The symbol may be shown in mirror image, and the coloring of the
symbol is at the option of the manufacturer. The symbol may be
embossed.
    We propose that each tether anchorage would be marked, even if it
is plainly visible. The mark would have to be centered at the middle of
the tether anchorage bar. The shortest distance from the nearest edge
of the mark to the center of the tether anchorage bar must be not more
than 25 mm (1 in). There are no specifications for the distance of the
marks from the tether anchorage in the ISO standard or in the CMVSS,
but we tentatively conclude that specifying a maximum spacing to the
mark is necessary to reduce confusion in identifying and locating the
anchorages (discussed further below). We also propose to require
manufacturers to include an explanation of the meaning of the tether
anchorage markings in written information (e.g., in the vehicle owner's
manual, if one is provided).
    We propose to permit a tether anchorage to be covered with a cap,
flap or cover, but the cap, flap or cover must be specifically designed
to give access to the tether anchorage. We would not permit an ordinary
floor mat to cover a tether anchorage; to be permitted, the floor mat
would need to be specifically designed to give access to the tether
anchorage, such as by having a flap that must be moved aside to access
the anchorage. Moreover, if a cap, flap or cover is covering a tether
anchorage, and the cap, flap or cover is permanently attached to the
vehicle, the cap, flap or cover must be marked with the centered ISO
symbol to inform consumers of the presence of the tether anchorage
under it. If the cap, flap or cover is not permanently attached to the
vehicle, the cap, flap or cover must be marked and the tether anchorage
must also be separately marked, to make sure the anchorage would be
marked in case the unattached cap, flap or cover is lost.
    We believe that alignment and proximity requirements are needed
because some vehicles such as SUVs and station wagons have tether
anchorages located in the seat back or the floor of the vehicle, along
with other cargo anchorages or similar hardware. One common CRS
installation error consumers commit is attaching a CRS tether hook to
other cargo anchorages or hardware not designed for a tether. Since
tether anchorages are not always marked with the ISO symbol or some
other label identifying them as CRS tether anchorages, it is difficult
for some consumers to distinguish which is the

tether anchorage. To illustrate, the MY 2012 Chevrolet Avalanche has a
labeled tether anchorage, yet it is still difficult to see which
structure is the tether anchorage because the symbol is on a plastic
surface located laterally from the tether anchorage, and the tether
anchorage is not distinguishable from other metal structures near it.
To improve the ease of use of tether anchorages, we are specifying the
alignment and proximity of the ISO symbol with tether anchorages so
that the symbol can be easily associated with the anchorages.
    NHTSA's analysis of the data from the agency and UMTRI surveys of
122 vehicles indicates that 41 percent of the vehicles had tether
anchorages with no cover and 73 percent of the tether anchorages were
marked with an ISO tether symbol.

IX. Conspicuity and Identification of CRS Connectors

    As suggested by some commenters in response to the 2007 LATCH
public meeting, the agency is also proposing to require the same ISO
marks on CRS lower anchorage connectors and on tether hooks as we have
proposed for the vehicle components. The required marks would be in a
smaller minimum size compared to the vehicle markings. We propose that
the symbol may be shown in mirror image, and the color of the symbol
may be at the option of the manufacturer. The symbol may be embossed.

a. Lower Anchorage Connectors

    We propose to amend FMVSS No. 213 to require an ISO mark on the
lower anchorage connectors. The mark would be the same standardized
symbol used on the vehicle's lower anchorages (see Figure 16). We
tentatively believe that requiring CRS lower anchorage connectors to be
marked with the same standardized symbol as the vehicle's lower
anchorages would make consumers more aware of the existence of child
restraint anchorage systems. Further, it would also facilitate consumer
education efforts by simplifying education messages. Consumers could be
simply told to match the marks on the lower anchorage connectors to the
lower anchorage marks on the vehicle.
    We are proposing that the ISO mark for the CRS lower anchorage
connectors shall be at least 9 mm (0.35 in) in diameter. We propose a
smaller minimum size of the mark for this mark compared to the size of
the ISO mark for the vehicle lower anchorages (13 mm (.51 in)) to
accommodate the smaller space available on the lower anchorage
connectors for the mark. We also propose to require CRS manufacturers
to include an explanation of the meaning of the lower anchorage
connector markings in the CRS user's manual.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.014

b. Tether Hook

    We propose to amend FMVSS No. 213 to require one of the two ISO
tether anchorage marks on the tether hook or the tether strap of a CRS.
If the mark is on the tether strap or a tag attached to the strap, the
mark must be located within one inch of the tether hardware assembly
(tether hook and adjustment hardware). The two tether anchorage mark
options are shown below in Figure 17. Child restraint manufacturers
would have the option of using either mark. We are proposing that the
ISO mark must be at least 8 mm (0.35 in) in diameter. We propose a
smaller minimum size for this mark compared to the size of the ISO mark
for the vehicle tether anchorage (20 mm) to accommodate the smaller
space available on the tether hook and the tether strap for the mark.
We also propose to require CRS manufacturers to include an explanation
of the meaning of the markings in the CRS user's manual.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.015

    We tentatively believe that requiring a CRS tether hook or tether
strap be marked with the same standardized symbol as the vehicle's
tether anchorage would make consumer education more effective. It would
simplify education messages to be able to tell consumers to match the
mark on a CRS tether hook or strap to a tether anchorage mark in the
vehicle.

X. Request for Comments

a. Center Rear Seat

    FMVSS No. 225 (S4.4) requires vehicles with three or more forward-
facing rear DSPs to have a child restraint anchorage system at not
fewer than two rear DSPs.\57\ Vehicles with three or more forward-
facing rear DSPs are required to 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). NHTSA
recognized in the March 5, 1999 final rule \58\ that vehicle
manufacturers would probably install the lower anchorages in the two
outboard seating positions because two child restraint anchorage
systems were unlikely to fit side-by-side in the rear seat. The
requirement for a third tether anchorage at a center seat provides
consumers the option of installing child restraints in a center DSP,
where there is the vehicle's belt system and a tether anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ We did not require child restraint anchorage systems in all
three rear seating positions because demographics data did not show
that there were a significant number of families with three or more
children in child restraint systems. NHTSA also sought to minimize
the cost of the rule to the extent reasonable.
    \58\ 64 FR 10803, March 5, 1999, FMVS No. 225 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information from the NHTSA rear seat survey \59\ of 24 MY 2010
vehicles and the UMTRI survey \60\ of 98 MY 2010-2011 vehicles shows
that vehicle manufacturers have mostly opted to install the two
required child restraint anchorage systems in the two outboard
positions of the second row and only equip the center seat, if
available, with a tether anchorage. A review of the combined data from
the NHTSA rear seat survey and the UMTRI survey found that of vehicles
with a rear center DSP, none offered two dedicated lower anchorages in
the center position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Aram, M.L., Rockwell, T. ``Vehicle Rear Seat Study-
Technical Report,'' NHTSA, 2012, which is in the docket for this
NPRM.
    \60\ LATCH Usability study, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the issuance of the final rule, many consumers have expressed
a desire to use the rear center seating location to install a CRS using
the lower anchorages. NHTSA requests comment on possible ways to
address this. The Safe Kids survey \61\ indicated that about a third of
children in CRSs with internal harnesses (these CRSs are designed to be
attached to the vehicle seat by the child restraint anchorage system or
the seat belt) are installed in the rear center seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ A Look Inside American Family Vehicles: National Study of
79,000 car seats, 2009-2010. Safe Kids USA. September 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One approach would be to require a set of lower anchorages in the
rear center seating position, instead of one or both of the child
restraint anchorage systems available at the outboard positions in most
current vehicle models. We request comment on the feasibility of
installing a child restraint anchorage system in a rear center seating
position and on whether we should require such installation. We believe
there are potential limitations to the center seat, such as space,
hardware and other features that could impede accommodating a set of
lower anchorages in the center seat, especially if there were a set of
lower anchorages in the outboard seating position(s).
    In addition, we believe it is more desirable to have two usable
child restraint anchorage systems available to consumers in the rear
seat (in the outboard positions) rather than only one in the center.
NCRUSS \62\ data showed that of the 4,132 vehicles with children 9
years old or younger in the second row, 329 vehicles (8 percent) had
two children in child restraints with internal harnesses in the second
row: 293 vehicles (7 percent) had the two children in the outboard
seating positions and 36 vehicles (0.9 percent) had the two children in
adjacent seating positions, (one in an outboard seating position and
one in the center seating position). Twenty vehicles (0.5 percent) of
the 4,132 vehicles had the three children seated in a CRS in the second
row: 8 vehicles (0.2 percent) had three children in child restraints
with internal harnesses, 1 vehicle (0.025 percent) had 2 child
restraints with internal harnesses and a booster seat and 11 vehicles
(0.26 percent) had 2 booster seats and 1 child restraint with an
internal harness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study, DOT HS 811 679,
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811679.pdf (full report pending).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second approach would be to require a third set of dedicated
lower anchorages in the rear center seat. Although as with the previous
approach we generally believe insufficient space and potential
interference with hardware and other features could impede the
installation of dedicated set of lower anchorages for the center
seating position in all vehicles, UMTRI studied the feasibility of
lower

anchorages in the rear center seat \63\ for 85 MY 2010-2011 vehicles.
UMTRI determined that vehicles with 710 mm (27.9 in) or more distance
between the centerlines of outboard lower anchorages behind the driver
and front passenger seats 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. Based on this finding, UMTRI
noted that 47 of the 85 vehicles surveyed (56 percent) could include a
dedicated center lower anchorage position in addition to the two
outboard anchorage positions without seat belt interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Klinich, K.D., Manary, M.A., Orton, N.R. ``Feasibility of
Center LATCH.'' This report is in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the feasibility of installing a dedicated
child restraint anchorage system 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. We request comment on the
merits of requiring such installation.
    A third approach would be based on ``simulated'' child restraint
anchorage systems. A ``simulated'' child restraint anchorage system in
the rear center seating position consists of the inboard lower
anchorages of the child restraint anchorage systems in the two outboard
seating positions and the tether anchorage in the center seat. The
agency's rear seat study \64\ further found that of vehicles that had a
rear center DSP (19 out of 24), 15.8 percent had instructions that
permitted using a simulated child restraint anchorage system in the
rear center seating position. Child passenger safety technicians
(CPSTs) \65\ recommend using a ``simulated'' child restraint anchorage
system only if both the manufacturer of the child restraint and the
manufacturer of the vehicle endorse using a simulated system. We are
interested in learning more about how widely CRS manufacturers and
vehicle manufacturers endorse use of simulated child restraint
anchorage systems. We request comment on whether we should encourage,
or possibly require, CRS manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers to
include statements in the owner's instructions endorsing the use of
simulated child restraint anchorage systems in rear center seating
positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Aram, M.L., Rockwell, T. ``Vehicle Rear Seat Study-
Technical Report,'' NHTSA, 2012, which is in the docket for this
NPRM.
    \65\ CPSTs are trained in a program conducted by Safe Kids
Worldwide to conduct child safety seat checks across the country and
provide parents and caregivers hands-on assistance with proper use
of child restraint systems and seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An issue arising with simulated child restraint anchorage systems
relates to the spacing of the lower anchorages. FMVSS No. 225 requires
the lower anchorages to be spaced 280 mm (11 in) apart, measured as the
center-to-center distance of the lower anchorage bars. The distance
between the lower anchorages is important to maintain uniformity with
the spacing of rigid lower anchorage connectors on child
restraints,\66\ and to standardize the configuration of the lower
anchorages to increase the likelihood that consumers will attach a CRS
to a child restraint anchorage system and not to a part of a vehicle
seat that was not intended for anchoring a child restraint. If a
vehicle has the two requisite child restraint anchorage systems with
the lower anchorages spaced 280 mm (11 in) apart in the outboard DSPs,
the agency questions whether the simulated child restraint anchorage
system could have the lower anchorages spaced more than 280 mm (11 in)
apart?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Rigid lower anchorage connectors are prevalent in Europe.
Although they are not prevalent now in the U.S., they are permitted
by FMVSS No. 213. ISO 13216 Road vehicles--Anchorages in vehicles
and attachments to anchorages for child restraint systems. http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We tentatively conclude that the answer is yes. This is because
virtually all CRS designs in the U.S. use flexible lower anchorage
connectors (as opposed to rigid), which are uniquely capable of being
installed using a ``simulated'' child restraint anchorage system with
varying spacing widths. A vehicle's lower anchorages would also be
labeled, which would reduce the chances of the consumer attaching the
child restraint lower anchorage connectors to the wrong part. Moreover,
as discussed below, test data so far indicate that simulated child
restraint anchorage systems perform satisfactorily from a
crashworthiness point of view.
    NHTSA's rear seat survey showed that the spacing of the inboard
anchorages of the outboard seating positions varied from 270 to 675 mm
(10.6 to 26.5 in). These included all vehicles regardless of whether a
simulated child restraint anchorage system was recommended. Ford Motor
Company (Ford) has endorsed in its manuals the use of simulated child
restraint anchorage systems in Ford vehicles (e.g., Focus, Fusion) that
have lower anchorages spaced less than 500 mm (19.6 in) apart, although
the consumer is instructed to also obtain approval from the child
restraint manufacturer before using a simulated child restraint
anchorage system. We understand that Ford makes this recommendation
based on independent tests demonstrating that distances greater than
280 mm (11 in) between lower anchorages would not have adverse effects
on child passenger safety.
    UMTRI data also indicate that simulated child restraint anchorage
systems perform satisfactorily. UMTRI conducted tests to quantify the
effect of lower anchorage spacing on CRS performance. UMTRI performed a
total of 15 sled tests using lower anchorage spacing of 280, 500 and
550 mm (11, 19.6 and 21.6 in) with five unspecified models of CRSs
using the FMVSS No. 213 standard bench seat and test protocol. No
installation issues, structural failures, or unusual dummy kinematics
were observed. Wider spacing between lower anchorages (550 mm (21.6 in)
compared to 280 mm (11 in)) only caused a lower anchorage peak load
increase of 3-14 percent. No consistent trends or significant changes
were found in seat back rotation (of rear-facing seats), peak head
excursion, peak knee excursion, HIC, or chest acceleration.
    NHTSA's testing also found satisfactory performance when using
lower anchorages spaced greater than 280 mm (11 in). A series of six
frontal impact sled tests were conducted based on the FMVSS No. 213
dynamic test procedure. Six side impact sled tests were also conducted
by rotating the FMVSS No. 213 seat fixture 90 degrees to the direction
of impact and using the half-sine pulse and velocity that was used in
NHTSA's development of a proposed side impact test procedure.\67\ In
the frontal impact sled tests, an all-in-one child restraint (Alpha
Omega Elite) was tested in its forward-facing mode with a HIII-3C
dummy, and an infant carrier (Evenflo Discovery 5) was tested in the
rear-facing mode with a 12-month-old CRABI dummy. In the side impact
sled tests, the same all-in-one restraint was tested in its forward-
facing mode with a Q-series 3-year-old child (Q3s) dummy and a
different infant carrier (Graco Infant Safe Seat Step 1) was tested in
the rear-facing mode with a 12-month-old CRABI dummy. Three tests of
each CRS model were performed varying the lower anchorage spacing at
280, 400 and 520 mm (11, 15.7, 20.4 in).\68\ Similar to other studies,
the

results 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. The HIC values and head and chest accelerations were
all within acceptable limits for the 3-year-old and 12-month old child
dummies in 20 mph (32 km/h) side impacts and 30 mph (48 km/h) frontal
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See NPRM proposing to add a side impact test to FMVSS No.
213, 79 FR 4570, January 28, 2014.
    \68\ The NHTSA rear seat study showed that all the vehicles
except the Toyota Tundra had lower anchorage spacing less than 520
mm (20.4 in). The lower anchorages on the Toyota Tundra Crew and
Extended Cab models were spaced greater than 580 mm (22.8 in) apart.
The Tundra owner's manual contains no statements on use of simulated
child restraint anchorage systems in the center position. NHTSA
considered the spacing on the Toyota Tundra vehicles outliers in the
study, and thus chose 520 mm (20.4 in) as the widest lower anchorage
spacing in its testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that there appears to be a lower need for the lower
anchorages to be 280 mm (11 in) apart in a simulated child restraint
anchorage system than in the required child restraint anchorage
systems, and given that simulated systems appear to be performing
satisfactorily in dynamic testing, should we encourage or require CRS
manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers to include, in instruction
manuals, statements that endorse the use of simulated child restraint
anchorage systems in rear center seating positions? An advantage of CRS
and vehicle manufacturers endorsing simulated child restraint anchorage
systems is to provide consumers the option of installing a CRS in the
center rear seat with the lower anchorages plus tether at no cost.
    In examining this question, another issue to consider is whether
the strength of the lower anchorages of the simulated system needs to
be tested as a unit to FMVSS No. 225's strength requirements (S9.4). We
tentatively conclude that the answer is no, such testing appears
redundant. This is because the strength of the lower anchorages would
be assessed when the requisite child restraint anchorage systems at the
outboard DSPs are tested. Further, our sled tests showed that the loads
of the lower anchorages do not change significantly with the different
lower anchorage spacing (280, 400 and 520 mm).\69\ If the agency were
to test the strength of a simulated child restraint anchorage system, a
new test device would have to be developed because the test device
currently used in FMVSS No. 225 is made to test only lower anchorages
that are spaced 280 mm (11 in) apart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A separate, but related, issue to consider is the potential problem
of users using the same lower anchorage for the attachment of two lower
anchorage connectors from adjacent child restraints. We request
comments on solutions to mitigate this possible misuse problem. Ford
includes a warning in vehicle owner's manuals to ``never attach two
child safety seats to the same anchor.'' We request comment on whether
vehicle manufacturers have received any complaints of confusion or
reports of failures due to consumers installing two CRSs to the same
lower anchorage. We also request comment on whether CPSTs have
encountered this type of misuse in the field.
    There is also the issue of whether we should limit the lateral
spacing of the lower anchorages of the simulated system, to prohibit
vehicle manufacturers from recommending the use of the inboard lower
anchorages if the anchorages are more than a specified distance, such
as 520 mm (20.4 in). NHTSA has test data indicating satisfactory
performance by CRSs attached to lower anchorages spaced a maximum 520
mm (20.4 in) apart. We do not have test data assessing lower anchorages
spaced more than 520 mm (20.4 in) apart.

b. Third Row

    FMVSS No. 225 requires that at least one of the two required child
restraint anchorage systems be installed at a second row seating
position in each vehicle that has three or more rows. In the 1997 NPRM
underlying the 1999 final rule establishing the standard, the agency
requested comment on demographic data on the number of children
typically transported in child restraints in family vehicles, to
evaluate the need for additional child restraint anchorage systems in
vehicles with three or more rows. The data we received did not show
there were a significant number of families with three or more children
in child restraints. Based on that data, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 225 to
require only two full child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles,
plus the third tether anchorage.
    We request comment on whether FMVSS No. 225 should require child
restraint anchorage systems or tether anchorages in all rear seating
positions. Would requiring child restraint anchorage systems or tether
anchorages in all rear seating positions meet the need for motor
vehicle safety? Would the requirement protect the public against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident? There were a
number of comments to the 2007 LATCH public meeting expressing
dissatisfaction with the number of child restraint anchorage systems
that are present in the third row of vehicles. Some commenters said
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 child restraint anchorage systems because the third row
does not have the systems.
    NHTSA examined MY 2013 fleet data to determine the availability of
child restraint anchorage systems in the third row. We estimate that
57.2 percent of vehicles with three rows have one additional seating
position equipped with a child restraint anchorage system (additional
to those required), 10 percent have two additional seating positions
equipped with a child restraint anchorage system, and 32.7 percent do
not have child restraint anchorage systems in the third row.\70\
UMTRI's LATCH Usability study \71\ found that 71 percent of vehicles
with a third row had one or two tether anchorages in the third row
(most were in addition to those required), 9 percent had 3 tether
anchorages in the third row (most were in addition to those required),
and 19 percent did not have a tether anchorage in the third row. In
assessing the safety need for the requirement, we will consider how
frequently child restraint anchorage systems are used in the third row.
Recent surveys show that only about 2.4 \72\ to 4.5 percent \73\ of
children in CRSs with internal harnesses (CRSs that would use the lower
anchorages) are seated in the third row. We believe that the low use of
the third row is due in part to the small number of families with
multiple children in CRSs with internal harnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Based on 2013 vehicle production estimates submitted by
vehicle manufacturers to NCAP.
    \71\ ``LATCH Usability in Vehicles,'' supra.
    \72\ NCRUSS, supra.
    \73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is also reduced space in the third row, which may make it
difficult to fit most rear-facing CRSs. Information obtained from our
February 25, 2011, request for comments notice \74\ on the proposed
NCAP Vehicle-CRS Fit program indicated that rear-facing CRSs are not
likely to be used in the third row of a vehicle due to the available
space. Several comments from vehicle manufacturers (Nissan, the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and the Association of
Global Automakers) stated that vehicle designs present greater fit
challenges for rear-facing CRSs in the third row. The groups stated
that as CRSs continue to get larger and heavier and, as vehicles get
smaller for fuel economy purposes, compatibility problems may become

even more prevalent for the third row positions. Consumers Union (CU)
also expressed that it may be unreasonable for some vehicles to be
expected to fit rear-facing CRSs in the third row. CU stated that its
own evaluations have shown a need to fold second row seats flat in
order to install a third row rear-facing CRS since many second row
seats are not adjustable fore/aft. General Motors (GM) stated that
because second row seats are often not adjustable, it is often
``impractical'' to install rear-facing CRS in the third row. GM
referenced data collected via Safe Kids from July 2009 through January
2011 which showed that only one percent of children arrive at CRS
checkpoints in a rear-facing CRS in the third row of a vehicle. UMTRI
also commented that NHTSA's NCAP Vehicle-CRS fit program should not
require rear-facing CRSs to fit in all available third row positions
because most parents and caregivers do not choose to install rear-
facing CRSs in this row.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Docket NHTSA-2010-0062; 76 FR 10637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA requests comment on whether FMVSS No. 225 should require
child restraint anchorage systems 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. Information is also requested on 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 child restraint anchorage
systems in the third row of a vehicle, are child restraint anchorage
systems needed in the third row for forward-facing CRSs? The lower
anchorages (plus tether anchorage) have a weight limit of 29.5 kg (65
lb) combined weight (CRS + child), meaning that consumers are
instructed not to use the lower anchorages to attach a child restraint
when the combined weight of the CRS and child exceeds 29.5 kg (65 lb).
Consider also newly revised car seat use recommendations developed by
NHTSA and by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) \75\ recommending
that children should stay in a rear-facing CRS for as long as possible,
within the top height and weight limit allowed by the CRS manufacturer.
Most convertible CRSs specify a maximum child weight of 15.8-18 kg (35-
40 lb) in the rear-facing mode.\76\ All this indicates that, for child
restraint anchorage systems installed at third row seating positions,
use of the lower anchorages in the third row might only be for a
relatively short period for forward-facing restraints.\77\ If the lower
anchorages were used after a child is transitioned to a forward-facing
restraint (typically when the child reaches 15.8-18 kg (35-40 lb)),
they would be used only while the child weighs 14.5 to 22.6 kg (32 to
50 lb), depending on the CRS weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Policy Statement--Child Passenger Safety. Committee on
Injury, Violence and Poison prevention March 21.2011) Pediatrics--