Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/03/21/peds.2011-0213.full.pdf+html (last accessed June 24, 2014).
    \76\ This corresponds to the weight of a 50th to 80th percentile
4-year-old child.
    \77\ Generally lower anchorages would be used to attach a rear-
facing child restraint until the child is 15.8-18.1 kg (35-40 lb),
and then used for a forward-facing restraint only while the child
weighs 14.5-22.6 kg (32 to 50 lb), depending on CRS weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Would an amendment requiring child restraint anchorage systems or
tether anchorages at some or all third row seating positions meet the
requirements and considerations of Sec.  30111(a) and (b) of the
Vehicle Safety Act? Currently, for vehicles that do not have a tether
anchorage at the rear center seating position in the second row, a
tether anchorage is already required to be in a third row seating
position. Thus, the proposed requirement would be to have a second or
third tether anchorage in the third row. We also request comment on the
feasibility of installing child restraint anchorage systems and tether
anchorages in some or all rear seating positions in vehicles with three
or more rows.
    We estimate that including lower anchorages in two additional
seating positions would cost $7.2 million in vehicles with a third row
($2.50 per additional lower anchorage set) and $5.2 million for tether
anchorages in all third row seating positions ($1.33 per additional
tether anchorage). Testing costs would increase $1,500 per additional
child restraint anchorage system in each seating position for each
vehicle model. We request comment on these cost estimates.

c. Vehicles Currently Excluded From FMVSS No. 225

    1. We request comments on the feasibility of installing anchorages
in convertibles. FMVSS No. 225 currently excludes convertibles from
having to provide tether anchorages in rear seating positions. In
comments to the 1997 NPRM, GM and Mitsubishi stated that vehicle
manufacturers have technical problems installing tether anchorages in
convertibles because the vehicles have folding roofs, a stowage area
behind the seat back for the top and its mechanism, and less rear seat
space. NHTSA agreed that many convertibles could have design problems,
and determined that it could not at that time readily separate those
convertibles from those without technical problems. All convertibles
were excluded from the requirement.
    Since the time FMVSS No. 225 was established, tether anchorage
designs have evolved and vehicle manufacturers have had over 10 years
of experience installing them to meet the standard. Among 35
convertible vehicle models with a rear seat in the 2013 vehicle fleet,
ten are equipped with the full child restraint anchorage system (lower
anchorages and tether anchorage) in two rear DSPs, 14 are equipped with
only the lower anchorages at two rear DSPs, and 11 are not equipped
with any anchorages. We propose deleting the exclusion of convertible
vehicles from the requirement to provide tether anchorages. We wish to
know why the technical problems that existed in 1997 could not be
overcome by the knowledge gained since 1997. We request comments on the
feasibility of installing tether anchorages in the second row of
convertibles, and in the first row in convertibles that do not have a
second row.
    2. FMVSS No. 225, at S5(e), states that a vehicle--

with a rear designated seating position for which interference with
transmission and/or suspension components prevents the location of
the lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system anywhere within
the zone described by S9.2 or S<IP_ADDRESS>(b) such that the attitude
angles of S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) could be met, is excluded from the
requirement to provide a child restraint anchorage system at that
position. However, except as provided elsewhere in S5 of this
standard, such a vehicle must have a tether anchorage at a front
passenger designated seating position.

    We request comment on whether this exclusion in S5(e) of FMVSS No.
225 is still needed. Since the issuance of FMVSS No. 225, manufacturers
have gained experience in designing and installing vehicle seats with
lower anchorages. We believe that vehicle seats could be installed with
the lower anchorages so as not to interfere with transmission and/or
suspension components. We have tentatively determined there is no
longer a need for S5(e) and propose deleting it.

d. Written Instructions

    NHTSA requests comments on the following possible ways to enhance
the instructions provided consumers about using child restraint
anchorage systems.
1. Terminology
    Standard No. 225 (S12) requires vehicle manufacturers to provide

written instruction for using child restraint anchorage systems and
tether anchorages. Standard No. 213 (S5.6.1) specifies that child
restraint systems provide printed instructions that include a step-by-
step procedure for installing and securing the child restraint system
in a vehicle. To improve the ease of use of child restraint anchorage
systems, should the written information provided pursuant to Standards
No. 225 and No. 213 use standardized terminology referring to the parts
of the child restraint anchorage system and the components of the child
restraint that connect the CRS to the vehicle? We request comment on
whether requiring the following terms in child restraint and vehicle
user's manuals would help make the instructions clearer and more
uniform: ``lower anchor(s)'' and ``tether anchor'' for components of
the child restraint anchorage system, and ``lower anchor attachments''
and ``tether'' for components of the CRS that are used to connect the
CRS to the vehicle. A ``lower anchor attachment'' is comprised of a
``lower anchor connector'' and a ``lower anchor strap,'' (for flexible
lower anchor attachments) and a ``tether'' is comprised of a ``tether
hook'' and a ``tether strap.'' Would standardized terminology improve
consumer education efforts and increase the likelihood that child
restraints would be used correctly? \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ We tentatively believe that the term ``LATCH'' is not clear
enough for this purpose. As explained in an earlier footnote, the
term ``LATCH,'' is an acronym for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children,'' which was developed by industry as a consumer-friendly
term to describe the child restraint anchorage system. While the
term has been beneficial, it is also associated with some ambiguity
and confusion. For one thing, various vehicle and CRS manufacturers
have used the term ``LATCH'' in users' manuals differently.
``LATCH'' has been used to refer to the ``lower anchors'' of a child
restraint anchorage system, the full 3-point child restraint
anchorage system, or to the CRS tether. Also, some consumers
mistakenly associate CRS tether use only with attachment of the CRS
using the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system and
not with a CRS attachment using the seat belt, a misconception
possibly reinforced by the LATCH term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Recommendation for Tether Anchorage Use
    NHTSA has tentatively determined that consumers should be
instructed to always attach the CRS tether when restraining a child in
a forward-facing CRS with an internal harness. Further, we believe that
the instruction is appropriate when the CRS is installed using the
lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system \79\ and when
the CRS is installed using a seat belt. The instruction is simple and
would increase the ease of use of tether anchorages. The agency
requests comments on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 213 (February 27, 2012, 77 FR
11626) (response to petition for reconsideration, February 25, 2014,
79 FR 10396) to require, among other things, a label on some CRSs,
specifying the maximum child weight for using the lower anchorages
to install child restraints with internal harnesses. Child weight
limit = 29.5 kg (65lb)-CRS weight. The 2014 final rule provided
manufacturers an option of rounding the value up to the next
multiple of 2.2 kg (5 lb) using a lookup table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If consumers were provided the simple and straightforward
instruction to always attach the tether on the subject CRSs, we believe
that tether use would increase, to the benefit of child passengers. In
tests of a restrained dummy in forward-facing CRSs with harnesses,
researchers found reduced head excursions due to tether use in frontal
sled tests conducted at different speeds.\80\ Field data indicate that
the most common injury to children restrained in child restraints is a
head injury, and the source of injury is often contact with vehicle
structures in front of the child restraint, such as the vehicle front
seat back.\81\ We tentatively conclude that the use of tethers would
reduce the magnitude of head excursions, and that reduced head
excursions would result in fewer and less severe head injuries.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ UMTRI Research Review--Crash Protection for Child
Passengers: Rationale for Best Practice, January-March 2012, Volume
43, Number 1. http://www.umtri.umich.edu/content/rr_43_1.pdf.
    \81\ Analysis of 1993-2007 NASS-CDS data files showed that the
most-common AIS 2+ injuries among children restrained in rear seats
were to the head and face and the most-common contacts for AIS 2+
injuries to these children were the seat and back support. An
estimated 39 percent of AIS 2+ injuries in frontal crashes to
children restrained in rear seats were to the head and face with 59
percent of these injuries resulting from contact with the seat and
back support in front of the seating position.
    \82\ We believe that tether use may particularly benefit taller
children since they may experience greater head excursion than
children with shorter seated height.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test data indicate that tether anchorages are extremely robust and
would be reasonably able to withstand crash forces generated by
virtually all restrained children in the subject CRSs. As explained
below, NHTSA (a) estimated the dynamic loads that are imparted to
tether anchorages in 47-56 km/h (30-35 mph) crashes; \83\ (b) assessed
the strength of current tether anchorages through quasi-static
laboratory testing; and (c) analyzed those data to estimate the dynamic
loads that current anchorages would be able to withstand. NHTSA has
tentatively determined that the analysis shows that tether anchorages
are sufficiently strong to warrant an instruction that they should be
used with all children restrained in a forward-facing CRS with an
internal harness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Additionally, our analysis of 1993-2007 NASS-CDS data files
indicate that 99.4 percent of crashes that involve restrained
children have delta Vs less than or equal to 30 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dynamic Loads
    The agency estimated the loads that are imparted to tether
anchorages in relatively severe crashes. We reviewed Transport Canada
data of tether anchorage loads measured in 47-56 km/h (30-35 mph) full
frontal rigid barrier crash tests of 20 MY 2009 and 2010 vehicle
models.\84\ Transport Canada placed child restraints in the outboard
rear seating positions using the child restraint anchorage system
(including the top tether). The program involved 28 crash tests with
the HIII-6C dummy and 4 crash tests with the HIII-10C dummy. The weight
of the CRSs used in the tests ranged from 5.1 kg (11.4 lb) to 11.3 kg
(25.1 lb), and the combined weight of the CRS plus the 6 year-old and
10 year-old child dummies ranged from 28.1 to 42.1 kg (62 to 93 lb).
The peak vehicle acceleration in these crash tests ranged from 30 g to
68 g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Dynamic Load Measurement of Child Restraint Anchors in
Frontal Vehicle Crashes Conducted by Transport Canada, See docket
for this notice of proposed rulemaking. Details of the Transport
Canada tests are available in Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Transport Canada tests, the total anchorage loads (sum of
forces on the lower anchors and the tether anchor) ranged from 7,500 N
(1,686 lb) to 20,800 N (4,676 lb) with the HIII-6C dummy, and from
13,300 N (2,990 lb) to 20,400 N (4,586 lb) with the HIII-10C dummy (see
Tables A1(a) and A1(b) in the Appendix to the preamble of the February
25, 2014 final rule, 79 FR at 10414-10416). The peak measured tether
loads ranged from 677 N (152 lb) to 6,951 N (1,562 lb). The tether
loads were approximately 8 percent to 50 percent of the total measured
anchorage loads, with an average of 29 percent of the total. There were
no tether anchorage failures in any of the tests.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The Transport Canada tests included a 56 km/h (35 mph)
frontal impact test of a Kia Forte with a Hybrid III 10 year-old
child dummy restrained in Safety 1st Apex 65 CRS. The CRS was
installed in the right outboard rear seat with lower and tether
anchorages. The CRS weighed about 5.9 kg (13 lb). The combined
weight (child+CRS) in this test was 40.8 kg (90 lb), the peak
vehicle acceleration was 46 G. The total maximum anchorage loads
measured in this test was 20,395 N (4,584.9 lb). The peak tether
anchorage load was 7,759 N (1,744.3 lb). In that test, one of the
lower anchorages failed but the tether anchorage was intact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe the data from the Transport Canada tests (involving 47-
56 km/h (30-35 mph) full frontal rigid barrier crash tests) represent
just about all crashes involving restrained children

in the subject CRSs in the U.S. Our analysis of real world crash data
indicate that 99.4 percent of crashes that involve children in CRSs
have delta Vs less than or equal to 30 mph.\86\ Thus, the Transport
Canada data are indicative of the loads that are typically imposed on
tether anchorages in virtually all crashes involving children in
forward-facing CRSs with internal harnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Analysis of 1993-2007 NASS-CDS data files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measured Strength of Tether Anchors in the Current Fleet
    We conducted quasi-static tests on child restraint anchorages in 11
MY 2006-2011 \87\ vehicle models and 18 MY 2013 vehicle models \88\ to
assess the strength of the anchorages in the current fleet. (These
vehicles were previously crash-tested, but NHTSA examined the vehicles
to assess the condition of the child restraint anchorage systems to
determine the suitability of the vehicles for inclusion in the quasi-
static test program.) A static pull test was conducted on the tether
anchors alone in three rear seating positions using a cable at loading
rates similar to that specified in FMVSS No 225, but to higher loads or
to anchorage failure.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Valentin-Ruiz, et al. ``Quasi-static load tests to evaluate
the strength of child restraint anchorage systems in MY 2006-2011
vehicles,'' NHTSA Report, December 2013. See docket for this notice
of proposed rulemaking.
    \88\ ``Quasi-static load tests to evaluate the strength of child
restraint anchorage systems in MY 2013 vehicles,'' ALPHA Technology
Associates, Inc., December 2013. See docket for this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
    \89\ A few tether anchorage load tests were conducted until
failure of the anchorages. However, after an equipment failure, the
tether loads were limited to 10,000 N (2,248 lb) to prevent damage
to the equipment. Since the tether anchorage tests were performed
after the lower anchorage tests, and because some of the vehicle
seats experienced excessive seat damage and deformation during the
lower anchorage tests, achieving target loads in the tether
anchorage tests was not possible in some vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the 11 MY 2006-2011 vehicle models tested, 27 tether anchors
were subjected to quasi-static loads. All the tether anchorages had
strengths greater than 10,000 N (2,248 lb). Three tether anchorages
were loaded to failure: Failure of the tether anchorage occurred at
11,900 N (2,675 lb) in the Ford Taurus, and 13,200 N (2,967 lb) and
14,400 N (3,237 lb) in the Toyota Yaris.
    Among the 18 MY 2013 vehicle models tested, 43 tether anchors were
subjected to quasi-static loads. All of the tether anchorages had
strengths greater than 10,000 N (2,248 lb).\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Twenty-five tether anchors were tested to increased loads.
In some tests, even though there was no anchorage failure, there was
significant displacement and deformation of adjoining structures
including the seat. In some cases, the target loads could not be
achieved because of significant deformation of the seat structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dynamic to Static Strength
    Although there is no consistent and direct correlation between
dynamic to static strength of anchorage systems, and although the
dynamic to static strength ratio is vehicle specific, data show that
child restraint anchorage systems are able to withstand higher loads
dynamically than statically. In the Alliance's petition for
reconsideration of the strength requirements of the 1999 final rule
establishing FMVSS No. 225, the Alliance indicated that the quasi-
static test load of FMVSS No. 225 simulating a high-speed impact should
be approximately 50 percent of the expected dynamic load.\91\ Toyota
also expressed the view \92\ that the tether anchorage is able to
withstand greater loads dynamically than statically, and estimated the
value to be 30 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See 68 FR 38208, 38218; June 27, 2003.
    \92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has estimated the minimum dynamic loads that current
anchorages would be able to withstand, given the information from the
Alliance and Toyota regarding a dynamic to quasi-static load
relationship and the quasi-static load data that were available from
our test program. NHTSA's quasi-static anchorage load tests showed that
all tether anchorages had a static strength greater than 10,000 N
(2,248 lb). Applying the more conservative assumption for a dynamic to
static strength ratio of 1.3, the dynamic strength of the tether
anchorages is expected to be greater than 13,000 N (2,922 lb).
    This estimated dynamic strength of 13,000 N (2,990 lb) is about two
times the tether anchorage loads measured in Transport Canada's 47-56
km/h (30-35 mph) frontal vehicle crash tests. In those tests, the peak
measured tether loads ranged from 677 N (152 lb) to 6,951 N (1,562 lb).
These data suggest that tether anchorages are unlikely to fail in
virtually all crashes involving children restrained in forward-facing
CRSs with internal harnesses.
    We have tentatively determined that the benefits of tether use for
all children in the subject CRSs (regardless of child weight) outweigh
the risks occurring from tether anchorage failure due to a higher
combined weight and/or a higher severity crash. Thus, we believe that
tethers should be attached regardless of child weight in forward-facing
CRSs with internal harnesses.\93\ The tether supplements the primary
attachment of the CRS to the vehicle seat (the primary attachment is
accomplished by the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage
system or by the vehicle seat belt). The primary attachment of the CRS
to the vehicle should never fail in a crash since its integrity is
needed to avoid a catastrophic uncoupling of the CRS from the
vehicle.\94\ Further, child restraints are required by FMVSS No. 213 to
provide basic crash protection, including head protection, when
installed only by the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage
system or a seat belt, without the tether. The tether contributes to
the basic crash protection provided by CRSs by enhancing head
protection. Given the data that indicate that tether anchorages are
already reasonably robust to withstand crash forces, we tentatively
believe that tether use should be recommended for all children in
forward-facing child restraints with internal harnesses so that the
enhanced head protection can be achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ When the combined weight of CRS+child exceeds 29.5 kg (65
lb), the CRS is to be attached by the seat belt plus tether.
    \94\ Thus, the combined weight of CRS+child should not exceed
29.5 kg (65 lb) on the lower anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some CRS manufacturers are currently recommending tether use for
all forward-facing child restraints with internal harnesses, regardless
of the child weight.\95\ Given the available information on anchorage
strength and on the benefits of tether use, we tentatively believe that
such an instruction should be encouraged. We request comment on the
merits of an instruction to consumers to use the tether to install all
forward-facing child restraints with internal harnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The CRS manufacturers instruct consumers to attach the CRS
by the seat belt plus tether when the combined weight of CRS+child
exceeds the weight limit of the child restraint anchorage system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Proposed Effective Date

    The agency is proposing a lead time of 3 years from date of
publication of the final rule. This means that vehicles manufactured on
or after the date 3 years after the date of publication of the final
rule would be required to meet the ease of use requirements. In
addition, child restraints manufactured on or after the date 3 years
after the date of publication of the final rule would be required to
meet the proposed FMVSS No. 213 requirements. We propose to permit
optional early compliance with the requirements beginning 60 days after
the date of publication of the final rule.
    We believe there is good cause for providing a 3-year lead time.
The lead time is long enough for vehicle manufacturers to redesign the
lower anchorages in their vehicles to meet the

proposed requirements. The UMTRI LATCH Usability study survey of 98 MY
2010-2011 vehicles indicates that 79 percent will need some redesigning
to comply with the new lower anchorage usability requirements, and a
small percentage of vehicles that currently use webbing loops for
tether anchorages will need to redesign the anchorages to rigid
anchorage bars. We believe that these design modifications are minor
and mainly concern the vehicle seat and not the vehicle structure. Some
tether anchorages may have to be repositioned to provide the 165 mm
(6.5 in) strap wrap-around distance. This modification to the tether
anchorage location in some vehicles is also minor and would not require
any changes to the vehicle structure.
    The 1999 final rule promulgating FMVSS No. 225 provided a 3-year
lead time (with a phase-in) for compliance with the lower anchorage
requirements even though vehicles did not have lower anchorages. The
main requirements proposed by this NPRM involve only adjustments to the
positioning of lower anchorages and tether anchorages already installed
pursuant to FMVSS No. 225 and some modifications to seat cushion
stiffness. Therefore, the agency is proposing a 3-year lead time, with
no phase-in, since we believe that the lead time is sufficient for
vehicle manufacturers to reposition lower anchorages and tether
anchorages, if needed, to change seat cushion characteristics, and to
mark the lower anchorages and tether anchorage with the ISO signage.
Three years would also be sufficient time to change the relatively few
tether anchorages that are made of webbing material to rigid anchorage
bars. The three years of lead time would provide sufficient time for
manufacturers to change the written instructions provided with the
vehicles as proposed.
    We also believe that 3 years of lead time provides sufficient time
for child restraint manufacturers to meet the proposed rule. Comments
are requested on whether this lead time should be shortened. This NPRM
proposes minor changes to the requirements applying to CRSs. The
requirements are: Limiting the length of the tether hardware assembly
(consisting of a tether hook and hardware to tighten and loosen the
tether strap) to 165 mm (6.5 in) (UMTRI estimated that about 30 percent
of CRS models might need some changes to the tether hardware assembly
to meet the 165 mm (6.5 in) limit), marking the lower anchorage
connectors and the tether connector (hook) with the ISO marking, and
changing written instructions provided to consumers to include the
defined terms and instruction on using the tether. These are minor
changes that do not affect the shell or any other structure of the
child restraint. We believe the marking and user's instructions
amendments could be implemented in a year. Would it be worthwhile to
implement some or all of the proposed changes to child restraints
before the proposed changes are implemented for vehicles, particularly
the marking and user's written instructions requirements? The combined
data from NHTSA's survey of 24 MY 2010 vehicles and from UMTRI's LATCH
Usability study indicate that, of the 122 vehicles surveyed, 76 percent
of lower anchorages and 73 percent of tether anchorages were marked
with the ISO symbol. Since many child restraint anchorage systems are
already being marked with the ISO symbol, we tentatively conclude that
it might be beneficial to have a shorter lead time to mark the CRS
lower anchorage connectors and tether hook with the ISO symbol than 3
years after publication of a final rule. In that way, consumers can
begin learning sooner rather than later to match the ISO symbols on
CRSs with the ISO symbols in the vehicle.

XII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined
to be not significant under the Department's regulatory policies and
procedures.
    The total cost of the proposed rule is estimated to be $1.32
million. The cost is primarily due to the ISO labeling requirement.

Vehicle Costs

    The agency tentatively concludes that the proposed requirements for
attachment force, clearance angle and anchorage depth would not add
costs to the vehicle. To meet the requirements, vehicle seat designs
would change, but the redesigns would involve simple modifications to
the existing vehicle materials (i.e., the seat cushion) and not an
addition to the vehicle or a change to the vehicle structure. We
estimate that vehicle seats in approximately 79 percent of vehicles
would be affected, but the changes to meet the requirement would only
call for steps such as cutting larger open areas in the seat foam
surrounding the lower anchorage bars, or repositioning the seat cushion
relative to the anchorage bars. Redesigning the vehicle seats to meet
the requirements would be a one-time event, and would be so minor that
the costs for the redesigns would be slight. In addition, NHTSA
proposes to provide three years of lead time before manufacturers must
certify their vehicles as meeting the final rule requirements. That
lead time would provide sufficient time for manufacturers to minimize
costs since they may incorporate designs that meet the new requirements
into their regular vehicle redesign and manufacturing cycle.
    The agency estimates that the cost of conducting the lower
anchorage usability tests for evaluating attachment force, clearance
angle, and anchorage depth would be an average of $300 per vehicle. We
estimate that 560 models comprise the 16.32 million vehicles sold
annually that are subject to this NPRM. The total testing cost for 560
models is $168,000. This testing cost, distributed among the 16.32
million vehicles sold annually, with an average model life of 10 years,
is approximately $0.001 per vehicle.
    With regard to the proposed tether anchorage requirements, some
tether anchorages in existing vehicles will have to be moved further
from the head restraint to meet the minimum strap wrap-around distance
requirement. NHTSA has tentatively determined that such a change would
not add cost to the vehicle, since new material, or substantial change
to vehicle design, would not be needed. The agency estimates that the
cost of conducting the tether location measurement would be
approximately $50. We estimate that 560 models comprise 16.32 million
vehicles sold annually, for an annual testing cost of $28,000. This
testing cost, distributed among the 16.32 million vehicles sold
annually, with an average model life of 10 years, is significantly less
than $0.001 per vehicle. Since these testing costs per vehicle (lower
anchorage usability tests and tether anchorage location test) is so
small, it is not included in the overall costs of the rule).
    A very small percentage of vehicles that currently have webbing
loops for tether anchorages will need to make the anchorages rigid
bars. It is difficult to estimate the redesign costs of these vehicles
because the number of vehicles affected is very small. Comments are
requested on the redesign costs and

certification costs for these vehicles, and how a 3-year lead time for
complying with the new requirements affects those costs.
    The proposal would require all the lower anchorages and tether
anchorages to be marked with the ISO signage. We estimate there are
16.32 million vehicles produced annually, with 31.9 million lower
anchorage-equipped seating positions and 42.9 million tether anchorage-
equipped seating positions. Our survey of 122 MY 2010-2011 vehicles
indicates that 82 percent of lower anchorages and 73 percent of tether
anchorages already are marked with the ISO symbol. We estimate the cost
of ISO marks for a set of lower anchorages to be $0.05 and the cost of
marking the tether anchorage would be $0.025. The total incremental
cost to have ISO marks for all lower anchorages in the fleet is $0.29
million (= $0.05 x 0.18 x 31.9). The total incremental cost to have ISO
marks for all tether anchorages in the fleet is $0.29 million (= $0.025
x 0.27 x 42.9). Therefore, the total incremental cost of labeling all
child restraint anchorages with appropriate ISO marks is about $0.58
million.
    The cost of changing the written instructions accompanying the
vehicle is expected to be negligible (significantly less than $0.01).

Child Restraint System Costs

    The proposal would require the length of the tether hardware
assembly (which consists of a tether hook and a webbing tightening
mechanism) of child restraint systems to be not greater than 165 mm
(6.5 in). About 30 percent of forward-facing child restraints may need
some minor modification to the tether hardware assembly to meet the
length limit. We tentatively conclude that a 3-year lead time is
sufficient for this purpose. The tether hardware assembly is a simple
part that can be easily produced and attached to child restraint
tethers.
    The NPRM also proposes to require the ISO marks to be placed on
child restraint anchorage connectors. The agency estimates that 14.9
million CRSs are sold in the U.S. annually, of which 75 percent (11.18
million infant carriers, convertibles, forward-facing only,
combination, and 3-in-1 CRSs) have lower anchorage connectors and of
which 48 percent (7.18 million convertibles, forward-facing only,
combination, and 3-in-1 CRSs) have tethers. Applying an estimated cost
of $0.05 for ISO marks on one set of lower anchorage connectors, the
total cost for all applicable CRSs is $0.56 million (= $0.05 x 11.18
million). Applying an estimated cost of $0.025 for ISO marks on a
tether anchorage connector, the total cost for all applicable CRSs is
$0.18 million (= $0.025 x 7.18 million). Therefore, we estimate that
the total cost of adding ISO marks to child restraint anchorage
connectors is $0.74 million (= $0.56 million + $0.18 million).
    The cost of changing the written instructions accompanying the CRS
is expected to be negligible (significantly less than $0.01).

Benefits

    We expect the new usability requirements would improve correct
(tight) installation of CRSs, and increase tether use. Survey data
indicate that the tether is used in 56 percent of child restraint
installations, but is used correctly in only 39 percent of the
installations.\96\ The data also indicate that approximately 60 percent
of child restraints are installed using the lower anchorages.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Eichelberger, A.H., Decina, L.E., Jermakian, J.S., McCartt,
A.T., ``Use of top tether with forward facing child restraints:
Observations and driver interviews,'' Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, April 2013.
    \97\ NCRUSS, DOT HS 811 679, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811679.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming a 5 percent increase in tether use, and using data on the
reduction in injury measures in sled tests with and without tether
use,\98\ the agency estimates that the proposed changes to the tether
anchorage requirements of FMVSS Nos. 213 and 225 could save 1.5 lives
and prevent 4 moderate to severe injuries. Assuming a 5 percent
increase in correct CRS installation due to the proposed improvements
to the lower anchorage requirements, and using the reduction in injury
measures in sled tests with loose and tight installations,\99\ the
agency estimates that the proposed usability requirements for the lower
anchorages could save 1.4 lives and prevent 2.4 moderate to severe
injuries. Therefore, we estimate that the proposed requirements could
save about 2.9 lives and prevent 6 moderate to severe injuries per
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Final Economic Assessment FMVSS No. 213 and 225 Child
Restraint Systems and Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, 1999,
Docket No. NHTSA-1998-2290, Item No. 27. Table 6b of the Final
Economic Assessment shows a head injury measure for the 3-year-old
child dummy of 503 when tether is used and 631 when tether is not
used.
    \99\ Final Economic Assessment FMVSS No. 213 and 225 Child
Restraint Systems and Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, 1999,
Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3390, Item No. 27. Table 4 of the Final
Economic Assessment shows a head injury measure for the 6-year-old
child dummy of 642 for tight installation and 697 for loose
installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would also streamline FMVSS No. 225 by removing
outdated material, such as sections of the standard that relate to
requirements that were phased in when the standard was adopted.
Streamlining FMVSS No. 225, a result of retrospectively reviewing the
standard, would be consistent with E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review'' and the plain language provisions of E.O.
12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head
of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must also
provide a statement of the factual basis for this certification.
    I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA
estimates there to be 29 manufacturers of child restraints, none of
which are small businesses. Even if there were a small CRS
manufacturer, the impacts of this proposed rule would not be
significant. This NPRM proposes minor changes to the requirements
applying to CRSs. The requirements are: Limiting the length of the
tether hardware assembly (tether hook and tightening mechanism) to 165
mm (6.5 in) (UMTRI estimated that about 30 percent of CRS models might
need some changes to the tether hardware assembly to meet the 165 mm
(6.5 in) limit), marking the lower anchorage connectors and the tether
hook or tether strap with the ISO marking, and changing written
instructions provided to the owners to include the defined terms and
instruction on using the tether. These are minor changes that do not
affect the shell or any other structure of the child restraint. We
believe that there would be no incremental cost due to limiting the
tether hardware assembly to 165 mm (6.5 in) since the tether hardware
assembly costs would not increase because of the requirement. We
estimate that the cost of marking the CRS child restraint anchorage
connectors would be about $0.05 per set of lower anchorage connectors
and $0.03 per tether hook. Changing the written instructions

accompanying CRSs would be negligible (significantly less than $0.01).
    There are six small vehicle manufacturers. We believe that the
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on these
manufacturers. The vehicles produced by the small manufacturers already
have to provide child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages
meeting FMVSS No. 225, unless the vehicle is excluded from the
standard. We believe that the changes proposed in this NPRM only make
adjustments to the physical features of the anchorage systems,
adjustments that should have a positive impact on the ease of use of
the systems, but that are small in terms of affecting the overall
configuration of current anchorage systems. We estimate the cost of
marking the lower anchorages and the tether anchorages would only be
<$0.12 approximately (depending on the number of anchorages in the
vehicle) per vehicle. The cost of changing the written instructions
accompanying the vehicle would be negligible (<$0.01).
    Final-stage vehicle manufacturers buy incomplete vehicles and
complete the vehicle. Alterers modify new vehicles. In either case,
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the impacts of a final rule on such
entities would not be significant. Final-stage manufacturers or
alterers installing rear seats in vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 225
already have to provide child restraint anchorage systems and tether
anchorages meeting FMVSS No. 225. We believe that the changes proposed
in this NPRM only make small adjustments to the physical features of
the anchorage systems, adjustments that should have a positive impact
on the ease of use of the systems, but that are minor in terms of the
impact on the configuration of current anchorage systems. We estimate
the cost of marking the lower anchorages and the tether anchorages
would be less than $0.12 per vehicle (depending on the number of
anchorages in the vehicle). The cost of changing the written
instructions accompanying the vehicle would be negligible
(significantly less than $0.01 per vehicle).

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed
rule would not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law
causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion
regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the
likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort
litigation. To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the
language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of
today's proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many
NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such,
NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort
law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle
manufacturers than that established by today's proposed rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict,
there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort
cause of action.

Civil Justice Reform

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Before seeking OMB
approval, Federal agencies must provide a 60-day public comment period
and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each collection of information requirement. NHTSA believes
the proposed requirement to explain the meaning of the proposed
standardized marks on the lower anchorage connectors and the tether
hook in the CRS instruction manual would constitute a ``collection of
information'' requirement for child restraint system manufacturers. We
are providing a 60-day comment period on reporting burdens and other
matters associated with the instruction requirement.
    OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in
the request for comment document. Under OMB's regulation (5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
    The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used;
    How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected;
    How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following collection of information:
    Title: ``Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling
and Defect Notifications.''
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0576.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Business, Individuals and Households.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This rulemaking proposes
to require CRS manufacturers to include an explanation of the meaning
of the standardized markings on the lower anchorage connectors and the
tether hook (if available on the CRS) in the printed instructions
already provided with each new CRS. The standardized markings on the
CRS lower anchor connector and tether hook would help in the
development of a consistent and simple education message to improve
awareness of child restraint anchorage systems and improve correct
installation of child restraints.
    NHTSA anticipates a change to the hour burden or costs associated
with FMVSS No. 213 due to inclusion of an explanation of the meaning of
the standardized markings in the CRS printed instructions. Child
restraint manufacturers produce, on average, a total of approximately
4,500,000 child restraints per year. We estimate 2 seconds of
additional burden per child restraint for the addition of the
information on the existing instruction manual (2 sec x 4,500,000 units
= 9,000,000 seconds = 2,500 hours).
    Estimated Additional Annual Burden: 2,500 Hours.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID Number
above) 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: U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery or
Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please provide the docket
number of this document. You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    NHTSA reviewed various procedures and requirements developed by ISO
and SAE to improve the ease of use of child restraint anchorage
systems. ISO developed a rating system that evaluates and rates the
usability of the CRS's ISOFIX features, the vehicle's ISOFIX system,
and the interaction between the two.\100\ SAE developed a draft
recommended practice providing guidelines to vehicle manufacturers to
consider when designing characteristics of vehicle lower and upper
(tether) anchorages, and to CRS manufacturers for corresponding
features of CRS lower anchorage and tether connectors.\101\ In our
review, we determined that the ISO and SAE draft programs overall are
unlikely to improve the usability of child restraint anchorage systems
as effectively as today's NPRM. The ISO

draft standard primarily rates the vehicles and does not directly
mandate improvements to the usability of child restraint anchorage
systems. Further, 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 is limited because it
is a guideline and does not mandate improved usability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Draft ISO Standard 29061-1:2010, ``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).
    \101\ Draft SAE J2893, ``Guidelines for Implementation of the
Child Restraint Anchorage System in Motor Vehicles and Child
Restraint Systems.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we have tentatively determined that aspects of the ISO and
SAE procedures and requirements would improve the ease of use of child
restraint anchorage systems and have proposed their inclusion in this
NPRM. This NPRM proposes to require the signage developed by ISO for
marking lower anchorages and tether anchorages in vehicles, and lower
anchorage connectors and tether hooks on CRSs. This NPRM also proposes
to adopt the clearance angle and attachment force criteria developed by
draft SAE Standard J2893, and proposes to use SAE-developed tools and
procedures for evaluating child restraint anchorage system hardware in
vehicles.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2010
results in $136 million (110.993/81.606 = 1.36). This NPRM would not
result in a cost of $136 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this
NPRM is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)

    The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part:
    The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues.
In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of
U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be
necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export
and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving
health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues,
international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are
at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the
absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can
also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in
regulatory requirements.
    NHTSA requests public comment on the ``regulatory approaches taken
by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter of this
rulemaking. In the discussion above on the NTTAA, we have noted that we
have reviewed the procedures and regulations developed by ISO and SAE
to increase the ease of use of child restraint anchorage systems and
have used parts of those procedures in this NPRM. Comments are
requested on the above policy statement and the implications it has for
this rulemaking.

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your views.
    In our proposed regulatory text for FMVSS No. 225, we have removed
outdated sections and deleted obsolete language in an effort to make
the standard more concise and easier to understand. We also propose to
renumber some sections when multiple outdated paragraphs would be
deleted, so that the standard would be easier to read. Please let us
know if there are other housekeeping measures we could take to improve
the plain language of the standard.

XIII. Public Participation

    In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of
all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this proposed
rule. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule, but
request comments on specific issues throughout this document. Your
comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:

--Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
--Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views.
--If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the
estimate.
--Tell us which parts of the proposal you support, as well as those
with which you disagree.
--Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
--Offer specific alternatives.
--Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, such as the
units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections.
--Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your
comments.

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging
onto http://www.regulations.gov or by the means given in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this document.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information to the docket. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that the docket receives before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the
docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too
late for us to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that
one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion
for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. You may also see the comments on the
Internet (http://regulations.gov).
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires;
Incorporation by Reference.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Section 571.5 is amended by adding paragraphs (k)(5) through (k)(8),
to read as follows:

Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (5) [Reserved]
    (6) Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Anchorage Depth Tool,'' dated August
19, 2013, into Sec.  571.225.
    (7) Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Attachment Force Tool,'' dated May 22,
2013, into Sec.  571.225.
    (8) Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Clearance Angle Tool,'' dated May 21,
2013, into Sec.  571.225.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 571.213 is amended by adding S<IP_ADDRESS>, revising S5.9(a),
S5.9(b) and S5.9(c), and adding Figure 15 and Figure 16 in numerical
order, to read as follows:

Sec.  571.213  Child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    S5.6 Printed Instructions for Proper Use.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> In the case of child restraint systems marked as
specified in S5.9 (a) and (b), explain that the markings identify the
lower anchorage connectors and the tether anchorage connector,
respectively, and that the consumer should look for corresponding marks
on the vehicle child restraint anchorage system to attach the
appropriate connectors of the child restraint system.
* * * * *
    S5.9 Attachment to child restraint anchorage system.
    (a) Each add-on child restraint, other than a car bed, harness and
belt-positioning seat, shall have components permanently attached that
enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of
the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225
(Sec.  571.225) and depicted in Drawing Package SAS-100-1000, Standard
Seat Belt Assembly with Addendum A or in Drawing Package, ``NHTSA
Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2003'' (both
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5). The connectors must be
attached to the add-on child restraint by use of a tool, such as a
screwdriver. In the case of rear-facing child restraints with
detachable bases, only the base is required to have the connectors. The
connectors designed to attach the add-on child restraint to the lower
anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system shall be permanently
marked with the pictogram in Figure 15. The pictogram is not less than
9 mm in diameter.
    (b) In the case of each child restraint system that has components
for attaching the system to a tether anchorage, those components shall
include a tether hook that conforms to the configuration and geometry
specified in Figure 11 of this standard. The tether hook or the tether
strap shall be permanently marked with either pictogram shown in Figure
16. If the mark is on the tether strap or on a tag attached to the
tether strap, the mark must be located within 25 mm of the tether
hardware assembly (which consists of a tether hook and a webbing
tightening mechanism designed to tighten or loosen the tether strap).
    (c) In the case of each child restraint system that has components,
including belt webbing, for attaching to an anchorage of a child
restraint anchorage system, the belt webbing shall be adjustable so
that the child restraint can be tightly attached to the vehicle. The
length of the tether hardware assembly, which consists of a tether hook
and a mechanism designed to tighten and loosen the tether strap, shall
not exceed 165 mm.
* * * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.016

    Notes 1. Drawing not to scale.
    2. Symbol may be shown in mirror image.
    3. Color of the symbol is at the option of the manufacturer.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.017

    Notes 1. Drawing not to scale.
    2. Symbol may be shown in mirror image.
    3. Color of the symbol is at the option of the manufacturer.
    4. Either symbol may be marked at the option of the
manufacturer.

0
4. Section 571.225 is amended by:
0
a. Revising S4.2;
0
b. Removing S4.3, S4.4 and S4.5, redesignating S4.6 as S4.3 and
revising newly redesignated S4.3;
0
c. Removing S5(e);
0
d. Revising S6.1(a), S6.1(b), S6.2, and removing S6.2.1 through
S<IP_ADDRESS>;
0
e. Revising S6.3 and removing S6.3.1 through S<IP_ADDRESS>;
0
e. Revising the first sentence of S8, the introductory text of S8.1,
and removing and reserving S8.2;
0
f. Removing the introductory text of S9, revising S9.1.1(d) and
S9.2.2(a), adding S9.2.4 and S9.2.5, and revising S9.5;
0
g. Revising S11, S12(b) and S12(c), and adding S12(d);
0
f. Removing S13 through S16.4;
0
g. Revising Figures 3, 8 and 9, removing and reserving Figures 10, 11,
and 19, and adding Figures 24 through 27.
    The revised and added text and figures read as follows:

Sec.  571.225  Child restraint anchorage systems.

* * * * *
    S4.2 Vehicles shall be equipped as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this paragraph, except as provided in S5.
    (a) Each vehicle with three or more forward-facing rear designated
seating positions shall be equipped as specified in S4.2(a)(1) and (2).
    (1) Each vehicle shall be equipped with a child restraint anchorage
system conforming to the requirements of S6 and S9 at not fewer than
two forward-facing rear designated seating positions. At least one of
the child restraint anchorage systems shall be installed at a forward-
facing seating position in the second row in each vehicle that has
three or more rows, if such a forward-facing seating position is
available in that row.
    (2) Each vehicle shall be equipped with a tether anchorage
conforming to the requirements of S6 at a third forward-facing rear
designated seating position. The tether anchorage of a child restraint
anchorage system may count towards the third required tether anchorage.
In each vehicle with a forward-facing rear designated seating position
other than an outboard designated seating position, at least one tether
anchorage (with or without the lower anchorages of a child restraint
anchorage system) shall be at such a designated seating position.
    (b) Each vehicle with not more than two forward-facing rear
designated seating positions shall be equipped with a child restraint
anchorage system conforming to the requirements of S6 and S9 at each
forward-facing rear designated seating position.
    (c) Each vehicle without any forward-facing rear designated seating
position shall be equipped with a tether

anchorage conforming to the requirements of S6 at each front forward-
facing passenger seating position.
    S4.3 Movable seats. (a) A vehicle that is equipped with a forward-
facing rear designated seating position that can be moved such that it
is capable of being used at either an outboard or non-outboard forward-
facing seating position shall be considered as having a forward-facing
non-outboard seating position. Such a movable seat must be equipped
with a tether anchorage that meets the requirements of S6 or a child
restraint anchorage system that meets the requirements of S6 and S9, if
the vehicle does not have another forward-facing non-outboard seating
position that is so equipped.
    (b) Tether and lower anchorages shall be available for use at all
times, except when the seating position for which it is installed is
not available for use because the vehicle seat has been removed or
converted to an alternate use such as allowing for the carrying of
cargo.
* * * * *
    S6.1 * * *
    (a) Consist of a rigid bar of any cross section shape that permits
the attachment of a tether hook (of a child restraint system) meeting
the configuration and geometry specified in Figure 11 of Standard No.
213 (Sec.  571.213);
    (b) Be accessible without the need for any tools and without
folding the seat back or removing carpet or other vehicle components to
access the anchorages. However, 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 and is labeled with the symbol shown in Figure
27 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S6.2 Location of the tether anchorage.
    (a)(1) Subject to S6.2(b), the part of each tether anchorage to
which a tether hook attaches must be located within the shaded zone
shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard of the designated seating
position for which it is installed. The zone is defined with reference
to the seating reference point (see Sec.  571.3). (For purposes of the
figures, ``H Point'' means seating reference point.) A tether anchorage
may be recessed in the seat back, provided that it is not in the strap
wrap-around area at the top of the vehicle seat back. For the area
under the vehicle seat, the forwardmost edge of the shaded zone is
defined by 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 the centerline of the seat,
as shown in Figure 3.
    (2) The distance of the tether anchorage from a reference point
(SB) obtained by the intersection of a plane parallel to the torso line
reference plane that passes through the rearmost point of the seat and
the strap wrap-around line from the V-point to the tether anchorage,
shall be no less than 165 mm as shown in Figure 8 of this standard. The
rearmost point of the seat includes the rearmost point of the head
restraint, if a head restraint is present. For adjustable head
restraints, the rearmost point of the seat is determined with the head
restraint positioned at its highest position. For adjustable head
restraints, the strap wrap-around line from the V-point to the tether
anchorage shall be routed under the head restraint and between the
adjustment bars or adjacent to an adjustment bar. In vehicle seating
positions with integrated head restraints or with head restraints that
do not provide space under the head restraint to route a tether strap,
route the strap wrap-around line from the V-point to the tether
anchorage over the head restraint. In seating positions without head
restraints, route the strap wrap-around line from the V-point to the
tether anchorage over the seat back.
    (b) In the case of a vehicle that--
    (1) Has a user-ready tether anchorage for which no part of the
shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard of the designated
seating position for which the anchorage is installed is accessible
without removing a seating component of the vehicle; and
    (2) Has a tether strap routing device that is--
    (i) Not less than 65 mm behind the torso line for that seating
position, in the case of a flexible routing device or a deployable
routing device, measured horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal
plane; or
    (ii) Not less than 100 mm behind the torso line for that seating
position, in the case of a fixed rigid routing device, measured
horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal plane, the part of that
anchorage that attaches to a tether hook may, at the manufacturer's
option (with said option selected prior to, or at the time of,
certification of the vehicle) be located outside that zone.
    (iii) The measurement of the location of the flexible or deployable
routing device described in S6.2(b)(2)(i) is made with SFAD 2 properly
attached to the lower anchorages. A 40 mm wide nylon tether strap is
routed through the routing device and attached to the tether anchorage
in accordance with the written instructions required by S12 of this
standard. The forwardmost contact point between the strap and the
routing device must be within the stated limit when the tether strap is
flat against the top surface of the SFAD and tensioned to 55 to 65 N.
In seating positions without lower anchorages of a child restraint
anchorage system, the SFAD 2 is held with its central lateral plane in
the central vertical longitudinal plane of the seating position. The
adjustable anchorage attaching bars of the SFAD 2 are replaced by
spacers that end flush with the back surface of the SFAD 2.
    (iv) The distance from the routing device (where the strap has
completely cleared the routing device as shown in Figure 9) to the
tether anchorage shall be no less than 165 mm.
    S6.3 Strength requirements for tether anchorages.
    (a) When tested in accordance with S8, the tether anchorage must
not separate completely from the vehicle seat or seat anchorage or the
structure of the vehicle.
    (b) Provisions for simultaneous and sequential testing. (1) In the
case of vehicle seat assemblies equipped with more than one tether
anchorage, the force referred to in S6.3 may, at the agency's option,
be applied simultaneously to each of those tether anchorages. However,
that force may not be applied simultaneously to tether anchorages for
any two adjacent seating positions whose midpoints are less than 400 mm
apart, as measured in accordance with S6.3(b)(i) and (ii) and Figure
20.
    (i) The midpoint of the seating position lies in the vertical
longitudinal plane that is equidistant from vertical longitudinal
planes through the geometric center of each of the two lower anchorages
at the seating position. For those seating positions that do not
provide lower anchorages, the midpoint of the seating position lies in
the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the SgRP of the
seating position.
    (ii) Measure the distance between the vertical longitudinal planes
passing through the midpoints of the adjacent seating positions, as
measured along a line perpendicular to the planes.
    (2) A tether anchorage of a particular child restraint anchorage
system will not be tested with the lower anchorages of that anchorage
system if one or both of those lower anchorages have been previously
tested under this standard.
* * * * *
    S8 Test procedures. Each vehicle shall meet the requirements of
S6.3

when tested according to the following procedures. * * *
    S8.1 Apply the force specified in S6.3 as follows--
* * * * *
    S8.2 [Reserved]
    S9. Requirements for the lower anchorages of the child restraint
anchorage system.
* * * * *
    S9.1.1 * * *
    (d) The bars must not be capable of being stowable or foldable.
* * * * *
    S9.2 Location of the lower anchorages.
* * * * *
    S9.2.2 * * *
    (a) Located such that when the lower anchorage depth tool depicted
in Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Lower Anchorage Depth Tool,'' dated June
2014 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  571.5), is attached to the
anchorage bar, the 2 cm mark on the tool is 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; and
* * * * *
    S9.2.4 The lower anchorages shall be located such that no more than
178 N (40 lb) of force is needed to securely attach the tool, depicted
in Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Attachment Force Tool,'' dated June 2014
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  571.5), to an anchorage bar with
the tool positioned in at least one angle from 0 degrees to 45 degrees
from the horizontal using the procedure in S11(b) of this standard.
    S9.2.5 The lower anchorages shall be located such that the tool
depicted in Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Clearance Angle Tool,'' dated June
2014 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  571.5), measures a clearance
angle of at least 54 degrees using the procedure in S11(c) of this
standard.
* * * * *
    S9.5 Marking and conspicuity requirements.
    S9.5.1 Requirements for lower anchorages.
    (a) Above each bar installed pursuant to S4, the vehicle shall be
permanently marked with a circle that:
    (1) Is not less than 13 mm in diameter;
    (2) Contains the pictogram shown in Figure 24 of this standard; and
    (3) Is located such that its center is on each seat back between 50
and 100 mm above or on the seat cushion 100 25 mm forward
of the intersection of the vertical transverse and horizontal
longitudinal planes intersecting at the horizontal centerline of each
lower anchorage, as illustrated in Figure 22. The center of the circle
must be in the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the
center of the bar (25 mm).
    (4) The circle may be on a tag.
    (b) The bars may be covered by a removable cap or cover, provided
that the cap or cover is permanently marked with the pictogram shown in
Figure 24. If the cap or cover is permanently attached to the vehicle,
the lower anchorage bars are not required to be separately marked with
the pictogram. If the cap or cover is not permanently attached to the
vehicle, the lower anchorage bars must also be marked with the circle
meeting S9.5.1(a)(1) through (a)(3) of this standard.
    S9.5.2 Requirements for tether anchorages.
    (a) For each tether anchorage installed pursuant to S4, there shall
be a permanent mark that:
    (1) Consists of the pictogram shown in Figure 25 of this standard
that is not less than 20 mm in diameter;
    (2) The center of the circle in the longitudinal direction must be
in the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the center of
the tether anchorage bar (5 mm), as shown in Figure 26
(Front View) of this standard.
    (3) The nearest edge of the mark shall be located not more than 25
mm away from the tether anchorage bar as shown in Figure 26 (Side View)
of this standard.
    (b) The tether anchorage bar may be covered by a cap or cover that
is removable without the use of any tool, provided that the cap or
cover is permanently labeled with a mark meeting the requirements of
S9.5.2(a)(1). The center of the mark on the cap or cover shall be
centered at the middle of the tether anchorage bar, as shown in Figure
27 of this standard. If the cap or cover is permanently attached to the
vehicle, the tether anchorage is not required to be separately marked.
If the cap or cover is not permanently attached to the vehicle, the
tether anchorage must also be marked with the circle meeting
S9.5.2(a)(1) through S9.5.2(a)(3) of this standard.
* * * * *
    S11. Test procedures. Each vehicle shall meet the requirements of
this standard when tested according to the following procedures. Where
a range of values is specified, the vehicle shall be able to meet the
requirements at all points within the range.
    (a) Strength requirements.
    (1) Forward force direction. Place SFAD 2 in the vehicle seating
position and attach it to the two lower anchorages of the child
restraint anchorage system. Do not attach the tether anchorage. A
rearward horizontal force of 135 15 N is applied to the
center of the lower front crossbar of SFAD 2 to press the device
against the seat back as the fore-aft position of the rearward
extensions of the SFAD is adjusted to remove any slack or tension.
Apply a preload force of 500 N horizontally and in the vertical
centerline of the SFAD 2 at point X. Increase the pull force as
linearly as practicable to a full force application of 11,000 N in not
less than 24 seconds and not more than 30 seconds, and maintain at an
11,000 N level for 1 second.
    (2) Lateral force direction. Place SFAD 2 in the vehicle seating
position and attach it to the two lower anchorages of the child
restraint anchorage system. Do not attach the tether anchorage. A
rearward force of 135 15 N is applied to the center of the
lower front crossbar of SFAD 2 to press the device against the seat
back as the fore-aft position of the rearward extensions of the SFAD is
adjusted to remove any slack or tension. Apply a preload force of 500 N
horizontal and perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the SFAD
2 at point X of the test device. Increase the pull force as linearly as
practicable to a full force application of 5,000 N in not less than 24
seconds and not more than 30 seconds, and maintain at a 5,000 N level
for 1 second.
    (b) Attachment force. The seat back angle, if adjustable, is set at
the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle. Remove any lower
anchorage cover if present. To measure attachment force, hold the force
attachment tool perpendicularly aligned with the center of the lower
anchorage. Position the tool at an angle of 0 to 45 degrees from the
horizontal, and push the tool towards the lower anchorage. Measure the
force needed to engage the tool to the lower anchorage.
    (c) Clearance angle. The seat back angle, if adjustable, is set at
the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle. Remove any lower
anchorage cover if present. To measure clearance angle, attach the
clearance angle tool to the lower anchorage and apply a vertical force
of 67 N (15 lb) to the tool. Measure the angle (with respect to the
horizontal) of the tool while the force is being applied.
* * * * *
    S12. Written instructions.
* * * * *
    (b) In the case of vehicles required to be marked as specified in
paragraphs S4.1, S9.5.1 and S9.5.2, explain the

meaning of markings provided to locate the lower anchorages of child
restraint anchorage systems and the top tether anchorages;
    (c) Include instructions that provide a step-by-step procedure,
including diagrams, for properly attaching a child restraint system's
tether strap to the tether anchorages; and
    (d) Include instructions on how to locate and access the tether
anchorage and the lower anchorages.

Figures to Sec.  571.225

* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.019

    Notes: SB point is the intersection of the plane parallel to the
torso line reference plane that passes through the rearmost point of
the vehicle seat, and the strap wrap-around line from the V-point to
the tether anchorage.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.020

* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.021

    Notes: 1. Drawing not to scale.
    2. Symbol may be shown in mirror image.
    3. Color of the symbol at the option of the manufacturer.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.022

    Notes: 1. Drawing not to scale.
    2. Symbol may be shown in mirror image.
    3. Color of the symbol at the option of the manufacturer.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.023

    (Tolerance of 5 mm)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA15.024

(Tolerance of 10 mm in the Longitudinal and/or Lateral
Plane.)

    Note: The following Appendices will not appear in the CFR.

Appendix A: Field Studies

Decina Study--2005

    Three years after FMVSS No. 225 was fully phased in and child
restraints made to meet the corresponding changes in FMVSS No. 213,
NHTSA conducted a survey from April to October 2005 to assess the
progress made since 2002 and identify the possible needs for
additional steps. See Decina et al., ``Child Restraint Use Survey:
LATCH Use and Misuse,'' supra.). NHTSA wanted to know whether
drivers of vehicles equipped with child restraint anchorage systems
were using the systems to secure child restraints to the vehicle
seat, and if so, whether they were properly installing the
restraints. In the survey, the make/model and the type of restraint
installed in each seating position were recorded for each vehicle,
and the demographic characteristics and the type of child restraint
system were collected for each occupant. In addition, information
was gathered about the drivers' knowledge of child restraint
anchorage systems, along with their opinions on how easy it was for
them to use the systems. The study involved 1,121 children from
birth to age 4 in child restraint systems.
    Key findings of the survey were:
    (a) Of the child restraints located in a seating position
equipped with an upper tether anchor, 55 percent were attached to
the vehicle using the upper tether.
    (b) Among the 87 percent who placed the CRS at a position
equipped with lower anchors, 60 percent used the lower attachments
to secure the restraint to the vehicle.
    (c) In 13 percent of the vehicles equipped with child restraint
anchorage systems in which there was a child restraint, the
restraint was placed in a seat position not equipped with lower
anchors--instead, the vehicle seat belt was used to secure the
restraint to the vehicle.
    (d) Sixty-one (61) percent of upper tether nonusers and 55
percent of lower anchorage nonusers 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 use them properly--as the reason for not
using them.
    (e) Of those drivers with experience using both lower anchorages
and seat belts: (1) 81 percent of upper tether anchorage users and
74 percent of lower anchorage users said upper tether and/or lower
anchorages were easy to use; and (2) 75 percent preferred the lower
anchorages over seat belts.
    (f) Sixty-one (61) percent of child restraints installed with
child restraint anchorage systems were securely installed.
    All in all, the Decina study found that consumers who have
experience with the child restraint anchorage systems like them.
Among consumers having knowledge of both lower anchorages and seat
belt attachment, 75 percent preferred using lower anchorages.
Further, the report found that child restraint anchorage systems are
helping to reduce the incorrect installation of child restraints (61
percent of child restraints installed with child restraint anchorage
systems were securely installed, as compared to about 40-46 percent
of CRSs installed by seat belts securely installed).
    However, the report also indicated that proper use of child
restraint anchorage systems is not inherently evident. Many drivers
do not use the anchorage system because they do not know about it or
understand its purpose. There is also some confusion about where the
anchorages can be found. In addition, there were differing degrees
of difficulty using the anchorages depending on location and
configuration of the CRS hardware.

National Child Restraint Use Special Study--2011 Data

    The National Child Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS) is a
large-scale nationally-representative survey that involves both an
inspection of the child passenger's restraint system by a CPST and a
detailed interview of the driver.\102\ The survey collected
information on drivers and their child passengers of ages 0-8 years
between June and August 2011. NCRUSS data were collected at 24
primary sampling units (PSUs) across the country. The PSUs were
previously established from a separate ongoing data collection
effort, the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). The PSUs are
defined geographically, similar to cities or counties. The PSUs were
selected to cover urban, rural, and suburban environments and are
located in 17 different states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study, DOT HS 811
679, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811679.pdf (Full report
pending).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The survey collected 4,167 observations on children under 9
years of age, of which 268 (weighted percentage = 8.5 percent) were
of infant seats with a base, 142 (weighted percentage = 3.6 percent)
were of convertible or all-in-one type CRSs installed in rear-facing
mode and 1,983 (weighted percentage = 49.6 percent) were of
convertible, combination or all-in-one type CRSs installed in
forward-facing mode with harness. The remaining observations were of
children in other types of restraints including booster seats, seat
belts, vests, car beds, etc. The survey also found less than 2
percent of children unrestrained.
    For CRSs with internal harnesses, the survey results show that
49 percent of CRSs were installed with lower anchorages, 44 percent
were installed with seat belts, and 7 percent with both seat belt
and lower anchorages. When the analysis was restricted to only
vehicles equipped with child restraint anchorage systems, 61 percent
of the CRSs were installed using the lower anchorages and 9 percent
with both seat belt and lower anchorages. Decina had found that 55
percent of the harnessed CRSs observed in vehicles with child
restraint anchorage systems were attached using the lower
anchorages. The NCRUSS study shows a 15 percent increase in the rate
of all lower anchorage installations from 2005 to 2011.
    As for tether use, for forward-facing CRSs with internal
harnesses,\103\ tether use was 71 percent when installed with the
lower anchorages and 31 percent when installed with seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Rear-facing seats and booster seats are not typically
equipped or used with tether straps in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safe Kids Worldwide (Safe Kids) Data

    In September 2011, Safe Kids published a study based on 79,000
observations from ``car seat check'' events and appointments that
took place between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2010.\104\ Safe
Kids developed a standardized checklist that it uses at car seat
check events and records how the child and/or child restraint
arrived at the event and how the child and/or child restraint left
the event. The checklists are then scanned and entered into a
database that Safe Kids manages and updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The study found that correct installation ranged between 39 to
61 percent for seat belt installations and between 46 to 60 percent
for lower anchorage installation. Safe Kids defined correct seat
belt installation as one in which the child restraint's
manufacturer's instructions were followed and that is in accordance
with the Child Passenger Safety Certification Program (CPSCP) \105\
best practices, including seat belt routing, tightness (must not
move more than 1 inch side to side or front to back when grasped by
the belt path) and having a locked seat belt. Correct lower
anchorage installation consisted of using the lower anchorages as
instructed in both the CRS and vehicle manuals as well as following
the CPSCP best practices including: Using correct hardware, using
connectors in the right direction, correct identification of the
designated lower anchors in the vehicle and installation tightness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The National Child Passenger Safety Certification Program
certifies individuals as CPSTs. NHTSA assists in developing the
curriculum of the certification; the National CPS Board oversees the
quality and integrity of the training and certification
requirements; and Safe Kids Worldwide functions as the certifying
body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Safe Kids found a 7 percentage point difference in correct use
between lower anchorage installations and seat belt installations
for infant seats with base, and a 10 percentage point difference in
correct use between lower anchorage installations and seat belt
installations of forward-facing seats, with lower anchorage
installations having the higher rates of correct use. For other
rear-facing seats, seat belt installations had a 1 percentage point
advantage of correct use compared to installations with lower
anchorages.
    As for tether use, the study found 59 percent correct tether use
in forward-facing CRSs.
    We also reviewed Safe Kids sample data from the first quarter of
2012 comprising 17,000 observations. The data showed that 48 percent
of CRSs with internal harness were installed with the lower
anchorages, 46 percent with the seat belt and 6 percent with both
seat belt and lower anchorages in all vehicles (data did not
distinguish whether the vehicles were equipped with child restraint
anchorage systems). Overall tether usage in forward-facing CRSs with
internal harness was only 29 percent. Tether use was 45 percent when
the CRS was attached with lower anchorages and 15 percent when the
CRS was attached with seat belt.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ The reduced tether use in the 2012 Safe Kids data compared
to NHTSA's NCRUSS study could be attributed to the differences in
the two observation samples. The Safe Kids observations are made at
seat check stations where caregivers come to seek advice from the
CPSTs on correct CRS installation. These caregivers may be novice
CRS users or are unsure of the method of CRS installation.
Therefore, this convenience sample of observations may be biased
towards incorrect or non-ideal CRS installations. On the other hand,
the NCRUSS observations are from a stratified sample representative
of CRS use and installation in the United States and are designed to
be bias-free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B: Summary of 2007 Public Meeting

    In response to the 2006 report by Decina et al., supra, NHTSA
held a public meeting on February 8, 2007 to bring together child
restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, technicians,
researchers, and consumer groups to discuss ways to improve child
passenger safety through improving CRS designs and increasing the
proper use of child restraint systems.\107\ Questions were posed to
the participants of the public meeting regarding child restraint
anchorage system design, ease of use, and approaches to educating
the public about proper use.\108\ NHTSA solicited comments on design
considerations for tether anchorage locations, lower anchorage
accessibility, system availability in the center seating position,
and design of child restraint hooks and connectors. With respect to
child restraint anchorage system ease of use, NHTSA was interested
in the development of more user-friendly connectors, consumer
information on vehicle child restraint anchorage system hardware,
and CRS and vehicle compatibility. As for consumer education, NHTSA
wanted to know what types of

questions consumers had and how to spread child restraint anchorage
system awareness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 72 FR 3103, January 24, 2007, notice of public meeting,
request for comments.
    \108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency received comments from vehicle manufacturers, child
passenger advocacy groups, researchers, and individuals. While the
comments and suggestions received on child restraint anchorage
system were varied, the main themes were as follows:
    Lower Anchorages: There was support for improving the
conspicuity, accessibility, and ease of use of the lower anchorages
without compromising comfort to adult occupants, and standardizing
the location of the lower anchorages.
    Markings of Anchorages: There were suggestions for requiring all
anchorages to be marked by the International Standards Organization
(ISO) symbol regardless of anchorage visibility, requiring similar
markings for the CRS connectors, and considering color coded labels
to clarify the anchorage locations for each DSP.
    Child restraint anchorage system for rear center seat: There was
support for requiring a child restraint anchorage system in all rear
center seats, or developing provisions to use the inboard anchorages
of the outboard seating position for the center seat while taking
into consideration the possibility of misuse when two CRSs are
connected to the same anchorage.
    Child restraint anchorage system for 3rd row seating positions:
Some suggested requiring additional child restraint anchorage
system-equipped DSPs for vehicles with three or more rows.
    Consumer education: There were suggestions on using consistent
terminology in education material and developing up-to-date uniform
curriculum, requiring that a DVD or Web site be included in the
instruction manual for CRS installation, emphasizing the use of
tethers and explicitly encouraging the use of child restraint
anchorage systems rather than simply listing it as an option for
installation.
    A more detailed summary of comments received from the 2007
public meeting regarding child restraint anchorage system ease of
use is set forth below.

Lower Anchorage Usability

     Advocates for Highway Safety (Advocates), the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and Safe Ride News (SRN) suggested that
lower anchors be located farther forward in the seat bight to
increase visibility and make installation and removal easier.
     Advocates suggested that lower anchors need to be just
as accessible as seat belts. Otherwise, parents will continue to
install child restraints with seat belts over the LATCH system.
     SafetyBelt Safe USA (SBS) said that it is more
difficult to remove restraints from recessed anchors.
     SRN called for further research into whether hidden
lower anchors are a deterrent to using the LATCH system.
     Honda was concerned that moving anchors out of the seat
bight would cause occupant discomfort and would necessitate the
redesign of some seats. Instead, Honda suggested that there might be
a different way to clear space around anchors without moving them
forward.
     General Motors (GM) suggested that NHTSA evaluate SAE's
lower anchor access design guidelines.

Conspicuity and Identification of Anchors (Marking of Anchors)

     GM, Advocates, AAP, SRN, and the University of Virginia
(UVA) recommended that all tethers and lower anchors, regardless of
visibility, be conspicuously marked. GM suggested that the industry
develop a voluntary agreement to label all tethers with an anchor
symbol and all lower anchors with a baby dot symbol. The connectors
on the child restraint would also be labeled with the same symbols
for easy matching.
     AAP, SRN, and several CPSTs recommended that sets of
lower anchors be labeled or color coded to clarify which seating
position they serve, especially in the case of overlapping lower
anchors.

Tether Anchorage Specifications, Location, and Accessibility

     GM and SRN supported further restriction of the tether
zone to eliminate problems associated with tethers located
underneath seats and to make tether anchors more accessible. It was
also noted that further limitation of this zone would also ensure
that child restraints with shorter tether straps would be able to
reach the tether anchor.
     Honda recommended that NHTSA gain full understanding of
the optimal tether locations for different vehicle configurations
before further restricting the zone. It noted that tether anchor
locations in many vehicles are limited due to strength requirements.
     Honda recommended that NHTSA consider the comfort,
ingress/egress and excursion space of other occupants when
determining acceptable tether locations.
     AAP recommended that vehicle manufacturers provide
tether locations forward of seats for use with rear-facing seats.

Anchorage System for Center Seat

     GM and Honda recommended that provisions be developed
for the use of inboard lower anchors from outboard seats to create a
center seat full LATCH system. However, Honda noted that it does not
currently encourage this type of use since these anchors often are
not set 280 mm (11 in) apart, as specified in FMVSS No. 225. Honda,
SBS, GM and SRN recommended that NHTSA research the range of safe
distances between lower anchors in order to determine the
feasibility of this type of use.
     AAP was concerned that if consumers are given the
option of attaching a child seat to the inboard anchors of outboard
seats, they will then attach two child restraints to the same lower
anchor when installing adjacent restraints. One CPST recommended a
solution of making lower anchors smaller in size to discourage
parents from attempting to attach multiple restraints to a single
anchor.
     Advocates, UVA, and three CPSTs suggested that all
center seats be equipped with a full LATCH system.
     AAP, Advocates, and two CPSTs agreed that conflicting
information is currently given to parents regarding the center seat
position being the ``safest'' and the availability of full LATCH
systems in the center seat. The commenters suggested that this
discrepancy should be reconciled to avoid confusion when installing
seats in the center position. Possible solutions suggested include a
dedicated set of center seat anchors or built-in center seat child
restraints.

Full LATCH for 3rd Row Seat Positions

     SRN and SBS suggested that the minimum number of full
LATCH systems for a vehicle with three rows be increased. They
thought that providing more LATCH systems per vehicle could reduce
the number of incidences where multiple restraints are attached to a
single anchor.

Consumer Education

     AAP advised against inconsistent vocabulary,
recommending that NHTSA clarify certain terminology, such as
``LATCH'' referring to the entire system rather than just the lower
anchorages.
     Cohort 22 and UVA suggested that either a DVD or a Web
site link be included in instruction manuals to provide users an
installation video that would better clarify what a ``tight fit''
means.
     Honda suggested making a tether strap routing procedure
available to consumers.
     AAP believed that the importance of the tether in the
LATCH system must be emphasized to consumers. SRN recommended that
manuals explicitly encourage the use of LATCH rather than simply
listing it as an option for installation.
     GM, Honda, SRN, and a CPST emphasized the importance of
consumer education and public awareness of LATCH. SRN suggested that
an up-to-date and uniform curriculum of information be developed so
that the information given to parents and caregivers is consistent
from all sources (e.g. hospitals, police, and doctors).

Appendix C: Other Usability Efforts

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

    ISO, a worldwide voluntary federation of ISO member bodies, is
drafting an approach toward improving the usability of a child
restraint anchorage system called ``ISOFIX.'' \109\ (ISO 29061-
1:2010, Road vehicles--Methods and criteria for usability evaluation
of child restraint systems and their interface with vehicle
anchorage systems--Part 1: Vehicles and child restraint systems
equipped with ISOFIX anchorages and attachments.) The draft ISO
approach uses a rating system and criteria to provide child
restraint and vehicle manufacturers with a tool for the assessment
of the usability of ISOFIX systems. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ISO approach evaluates and rates the usability of the CRS's
ISOFIX features, the

vehicle's ISOFIX system, and the interaction between the two. 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 can mostly be applied to
our systems. The vehicle assessment with this methodology include
the instructions on how to identify the number and location of
ISOFIX-equipped seating positions, the visibility and labeling of
the ISOFIX anchorages, the proximity of hardware equipment to the
tether anchorage that could be mistakenly used to attach the tether,
and interference between lower anchorages and seat belt equipment.
The interaction between the vehicle and CRS is evaluated using the
criteria listed in Table 2.
    The ISOFIX systems of the CRS, vehicle, and the interaction
between the two are rated using a weighted scoring system with the
weights corresponding to the importance of each criterion for
improving ease of use and correct installation. Each criterion is
rated on a 3 point scale where a rating of good, average, and poor
are given a score of 3, 1, and 0, respectively. The importance of
each criterion is also rated on a 3 point scale ranging from 1 to 3,
with 3 being the most important.

   Table 2--Criteria Items in Form 3 of ISO 29061-1:2010 With Scoring
                                 System
                      [CRS and vehicle interaction]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Score Good,
                                          average and       Importance
                                          poor (3/1/0     (A,B,C = 3/2/1
                                             points           points
                                         respectively)    respectively)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.1 Using the CRS, are the prepared
 vehicle ISOFIX anchorages accessible
 during the connecting process (i.e.,
 is it possible to use them?)
3.1.2 ISOFIX anchorages accessible
 during installation process?
3.1.3 Is there clear feedback that the
 CRS is correctly attached to the
 ISOFIX anchorages?
3.1.4 Can the ISOFIX attachments be
 tightened after the initial
 connection to the lower anchorages?
3.1.5 Flexible attachments only: When
 properly installed, no hidden slack
 can exist in lower attachments.
3.1.6 Is the child harness fully
 operable when ISOFIX is installed
 properly?
3.2.1 Actions required to attach the
 tether to the tether anchorage?
3.2.2 Can tether be tightened
 properly?
3.2.3 Is there clear feedback that the
 child restraint system is correctly
 attached to the tether anchorage?
3.3.1 Actions required to adjust the
 primary anti-rotational device to the
 correct position (e.g., a support leg
 in a rearward installation)?
3.3.2 Actions required to operate any
 secondary anti-rotational device(s)
 [e.g., a rebound bar, or rebound
 tether(s), in a rearward
 installation]?
3.4.1 CRS and base preparation: CRS
 Base and CRS shell ready for
 installation?
3.4.2 Actions required to attach the
 CRS shell to base?
3.4.3 Is there a clear feedback of
 correct locking of the CRS to the
 base?
3.4.4 Actions required to detach CRS
 from base?
3.5.1 Ease of releasing tension of
 tether?
3.5.2 Actions required to detach and
 store the tether strap after tension
 has been released?
3.5.3 Ease of releasing tension of
 flexible CRS attachments?
3.5.4 Actions required to remove and
 store the primary anti-rotational
 device?
3.5.5 Actions required to remove and
 store any secondary anti-rotational
 device(s)?
3.5.6 Actions required to detach the
 attachments from the ISOFIX
 anchorages?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice (Draft)

    A draft SAE recommended practice entitled J2893,\110\
``Guidelines for Implementation of the Child Restraint Anchorage
System in Motor Vehicles and Child Restraint Systems,'' developed by
SAE's Child Restraint Systems Standards Committee, provides
guidelines to vehicle manufacturers for certain characteristics of
vehicle lower and upper (tether) anchorages, and to CRS
manufacturers for corresponding features of CRS lower anchorage and
tether connectors, so that each of their products 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 child restraints. The eleven guidelines include the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ The SAE J2893 Version 1-Draft 7 was used for the UMTRI
study. Any mention of the SAE J2893 recommendations throughout this
document will refer to this draft version of the guidelines which
are still under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Can the child restraint fixture attach to the lower anchors?
    Is the force to attach lower anchors less than 75 Newton (N)
(16.9 pound (lb))?
    Is the clearance angle as measured with a specified angle
measurement tool greater than 75 degrees?
    When resting unattached on the vehicle seat, is the lateral
angle of the child restraint fixture less than 5 degrees?
    When installed on the lower anchors, is the pitch angle of the
child restraint between 5 and 20 degrees?
    Does a specified collinearity tool attach to the lower anchors?
    Does a specified angle measurement tool contact any rigid
structure around the lower anchors?
    When installed, is the distance from the Z-point on the child
restraint fixture to the seat cushion less than 51 mm?
    Are tether anchors marked with the ISO Symbol?
    Are lower anchors marked with the ISO symbol?
    If a tether router is present, does it accommodate a specified
tether hardware assembly clearance tool?

c. NCAP's Pending Vehicle-CRS Fit Program

    On February 25, 2011,\111\ NHTSA published a request for
comments on the agency's plan to adopt a new consumer information
program that would be part of the agency's New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP). The intent of the program is to make it easier for
consumers to obtain a CRS that fits well in their vehicle. (76 FR
10637, February 25, 2011, Docket No NHTSA-2010-0062.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 76 FR 10637, February 25, 2011 request for comment, Docket
No NHTSA-2010-0062. NHTSA is in the process of considering the next
steps for the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA proposed the Vehicle-CRS Fit program to be a voluntary
program, in which NHTSA would make available to consumers
information provided by vehicle manufacturers as to the specific
CRSs that fit in specific vehicle models. NHTSA developed a set of
criteria to define what constitutes an acceptable ``fit'' under the
program. The plan was for vehicle manufacturers to use the criteria
to assess the fit of child restraints in their vehicles and
determine which CRSs can be identified as fitting the vehicle. The
vehicle manufacturers

would provide this information to NHTSA, and NHTSA in turn would
post this information on the agency's NCAP Web site,
www.safercar.gov.
    The agency proposed that part of the assessment of an adequate
fit would evaluate the interface of the CRS with the child restraint
anchorage system. The agency proposed that the following criteria be
included in evaluating the fit of a CRS in a vehicle:
    Whether the tether of the CRS can be attached to the tether
anchorage;
    Whether the tether can be properly tightened once attached to
the tether anchorage;
    Whether the lower anchorage connectors on the CRS can be
properly attached to the vehicle's lower anchorages;
    Whether the lower anchorage connectors on the CRS can be
tightened (if necessary) once connected to the lower anchorages;
    Whether the seat belt buckles for adjacent seating positions are
available for use by other passengers after the CRS is installed in
the vehicle using the lower anchorages of a child restraint
anchorage system; and
    Whether the upper weight limit of the CRS is less than the upper
weight limit specified for the vehicle's lower anchorages.
    NHTSA envisioned that consumers would use the information on the
safecar.gov Web site to see the CRSs that the vehicle manufacturer
has said will fit a particular vehicle. As part of the program,
NHTSA would conduct spot-checks of the manufacturers' information to
verify that the identified CRSs do meet the fit criteria of the
program.

    Issued on: January 5, 2015.
R. Ryan Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 2015-00162 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P