
[Federal Register: November 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 219)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 66786-66802]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12no08-17]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

[Docket No. NHTSA-08-0168]
RIN 2127-AK02

 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to update many of the 
child restraint systems (CRSs) listed in Appendix A of the standard. 
The CRSs in Appendix A are used by NHTSA to test advanced air bag 
suppression or low risk deployment systems, to ensure that the air bag 
systems pose no reasonable safety risk to infants and small children in 
the real world. The amendments replace the CRSs listed in Appendix A 
with CRSs that are more available and more representative of the CRS 
fleet currently on the market.

DATES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your 
petition must be received by December 29, 2008.
    Effective date: The date on which this final rule amends the CFR is 
January 12, 2009.
    This final rule adopts a one-year phase-in of the requirement to 
test with the child restraints in the revised Appendix A. Under the 
phase-in, 50 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2009 must be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with the 
CRSs on the revised Appendix A, and all vehicles manufactured on or 
after September 1, 2010 must be so certified.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search 
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets 
by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the 
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Cuentas, Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division (telephone 202-
366-4583, fax 202-493-2739). For legal issues, contact Deirdre Fujita, 
Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820). You 
may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Factors for Decision-Making
    a. Guiding Factors
    b. Child Restraint Data
    c. Additional Considerations
III. Proposed Changes
IV. Comments and Agency Responses on CRSs in Appendix A
    a. Deletions
    b. Additions (Identified in Table 1)
    1. Proposed Inclusion of Graco Snugride to Subpart B
    2. Proposed Inclusion of Peg Perego Primo Viaggio 
IMCC00US to Subpart B
    3. Proposed Inclusion of the Evenflo Generations 352 to 
Subpart C
    4. Proposed Inclusion of Cosco Summit Deluxe 22-260 to 
Subpart C
    5. Proposed Inclusion of the Graco SafeSeat (Step 2) 
8B02 to Subpart C
    c. Updating Other CRSs in Appendix A (Identified in Table 2)
    1. Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF (Subpart A)
    2. Cosco Arriva 22-013 (Subpart B)
    3. Britax Roundabout E9L02 (Subpart C)
    4. Graco ComfortSport (Subpart C)
    5. Evenflo Tribute V Deluxe 379 (Subpart C)
    6. Graco Cherished Cargo (Subpart D)
    7. Cosco High Back Booster 22-209 (Subpart D)
V. Compliance Date
VI. Early Compliance and Picking and Choosing of CRSs
VII. Testing Issues
    a. Positioning of Adjustable Features
    b. Testing the Car Bed
    c. Testing Forward-Facing-Only CRSs in Rear-Facing 
Configurations
    d. Specifying the Type Of Harness Used For Testing
VIII. Suggestions for Future Amendments
    a. Publishing a Yearly Bulletin
    b. Meaning of ``Available for Purchase''
    c. Developing ``standard'' models of CRSs
    d. Define ``model'' in Child Restraint System Standard
    e. Rear-Facing CRSs With High Profiles
IX. Specification of a Manufactured On or After Date for the Newly 
Added CRSs
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    This final rule amends FMVSS No. 208 to update the child restraint 
systems (CRSs) listed in Appendix A of the standard. The notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding this final rule was published on 
September 25, 2007 (72 FR 54402; Docket 2007-28710).

I. Background

    FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) requires passenger cars and trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) of 3,856 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds (lb)) or less and 
an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb) or less to be 
equipped with seat belts and frontal air bags for the protection of 
vehicle occupants in crashes. While air bags have been very effective 
in protecting people in moderate and high speed frontal crashes, there 
have been instances in which they have caused serious or fatal injuries 
to occupants who were very close to the air bag when it deployed. On 
May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule to require that air bags be 
designed to create less risk of serious air bag-induced injuries and 
provide improved frontal crash protection for all occupants, by means 
that include advanced air bag technology (``Advanced Air Bag Rule,'' 65 
FR 30680, Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013). Under the Advanced Air Bag Rule, 
to minimize the risk to infants and small children from deploying air 
bags, manufacturers may suppress an air bag in the presence of a CRS or 
provide a low risk deployment (LRD) system.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The LRD option involves deployment of the air bag in the 
presence of a Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) test 
dummy, representing a 12-month-old child, in a rear-facing child 
restraint.

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

[[Page 66787]]

    To minimize the risk to children, manufacturers relying on an air 
bag suppression or LRD system must ensure that the vehicle complies 
with the suppression or LRD requirements when tested with the CRSs 
specified in Appendix A of the standard. As part of ensuring the 
robustness of automatic air bag suppression and LRD systems, NHTSA made 
sure that the appendix contained CRSs that represented a large portion 
of the CRS market and CRSs with unique size and weight characteristics. 
NHTSA also planned regular updates to Appendix A.
    On November 19, 2003, in response to petitions for reconsideration 
of the May 2000 Advanced Air Bag Rule, the agency published a final 
rule that revised Appendix A by adding two CRSs that were equipped with 
components that attach to a vehicle's LATCH \2\ system (68 FR 65179, 
Docket No. NHTSA 03-16476). The appendix has not been updated since 
then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``LATCH'' stands for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for 
Children,'' a term that was developed by child restraint 
manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child 
restraint anchorage system that vehicle manufacturers must install 
pursuant to FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR 
Sec.  571.225). The LATCH system is comprised of two lower 
anchorages and one tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage is a rigid 
round rod or bar onto which the connector of a CRS can be attached. 
FMVSS No. 225 does not permit vehicle manufacturers to install LATCH 
systems in front designated seating positions unless the vehicle has 
an air bag on-off switch meeting the requirements of S4.5.4 of FMVSS 
No. 208. Since September 1, 2002, CRSs have been required by FMVSS 
No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR Sec.  571.213), to have 
permanently attached components that enable the CRS to connect to a 
LATCH system on a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRSs in Appendix A

    Appendix A is made up of four (4) subparts, subparts A through D. 
There are one (1) car bed, seven (7) rear-facing child restraint 
systems, nine (9) forward-facing toddler and forward-facing convertible 
CRSs and four (4) forward-facing toddler/belt positioning booster 
systems currently listed and deemed ``effective'' (i.e., may be used in 
compliance testing) in Appendix A.
     Subpart A lists a car bed that can be used by the agency 
to test the suppression system of a vehicle that is manufactured on or 
after the effective date specified in Appendix A and that has been 
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208, S19.
     Subpart B lists rear-facing CRSs that can be used by the 
agency to test the suppression system or the LRD capabilities of a 
vehicle that is manufactured on or after the effective date and prior 
to the termination date specified in the appendix and that has been 
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208, S19.
     Subpart C lists forward-facing toddler and forward-facing 
convertible \3\ CRSs that can be used by the agency to test the 
suppression system or the LRD capabilities of a vehicle that is 
manufactured on or after the effective date and prior to the 
termination date specified in the appendix and that has been certified 
as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208, S19 or S21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A convertible CRS is one that converts from a rear-facing 
seat to a forward-facing seat. A combination CRS is one that 
converts from a forward-facing seat to a booster seat or a CRS that 
is a convertible that can also be used as a booster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Subpart D lists forward-facing toddler/belt positioning 
booster systems and belt positioning booster systems that can be used 
by the agency to test the suppression system capabilities of a vehicle 
that is manufactured on or after the effective date and prior to the 
termination date specified in the appendix and that has been certified 
as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208, S21 or S23.

II. Factors for Decision-Making

a. Guiding Factors

    The November 2003 FMVSS No. 208 final rule discussed factors that 
the agency considers in deciding whether Appendix A should be updated 
(68 FR at 65188). NHTSA reviews the appendix to: Maintain a spectrum of 
CRSs that is representative of the CRS population in production, ensure 
that only relatively current restraints will be used for compliance 
testing, determine the availability of the CRSs and determine any 
change in design, other than those that are purely cosmetic. (If a 
change to a CRS were clearly cosmetic, such as color scheme or 
upholstery, the list would not be modified.) \4\ In considering whether 
a particular restraint should be in Appendix A, the agency considers 
whether the restraint--

    \4\ We also stated in the rule that, in considering whether to 
amend the appendix, we assess whether a variety of restraint 
manufacturers are represented in the appendix, and whether a 
combination of restraints are in the appendix. Id. These 
considerations bear on our assessment of the degree to which the 
CRSs in the appendix are representative of child restraints in the 
real world and assess the robustness of advanced air bag systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Has mass and dimensions representative of many restraints on the 
market,
--Has mass and dimensions representing outliers, and
--Has been a high sales volume model.
    In developing the 2007 NPRM, NHTSA evaluated data, discussed below, 
and systematically evaluated the CRSs in Appendix A. We assessed child 
restraint system dimensions, weight (mass) and sales volumes (based on 
confidential manufacturers' data) to identify which CRSs have 
dimensions that were representative of the average restraint in today's 
market, and which were possible outliers, with dimensions, weight \5\ 
and/or footprints \6\ markedly outside of those of the ``average'' CRS. 
In addition, the agency identified which CRSs had high production 
totals and, therefore, likely to have the greatest market share 
(highest sales volume).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Since the CRSs are used to test air bag suppression systems, 
it was important to identify which CRSs were the lightest and 
heaviest, and those that are representative of the average restraint 
in today's market in terms of weight.
    \6\ Some air bag suppression systems may have trouble sensing a 
CRS if the footprint is shaped in a way that loads the air bag 
suppression system sensors or load cells differently than the CRSs 
for which the suppression system was designed to recognize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Child Restraint Data

    The data used for the NPRM were obtained from CRS manufacturers and 
NHTSA's Ease-of-Use (EOU) consumer information program. The agency's 
EOU program started in 2002 in response to the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, which 
directed NHTSA to issue a notice to establish a child restraint safety 
rating consumer information program to provide practicable, readily 
understandable, and timely information to consumers for use in making 
informed decisions in the purchase of child restraints. The EOU program 
provides information about child restraints with features that are 
easier for consumers to use and install correctly. The EOU program 
seeks to evaluate all CRSs available for sale at retail outlets.
    The 2006 EOU program assessed 99 different CRSs (including 
carryover seats from the previous year that were not changed), selected 
from 14 different manufacturers (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25344). In 
addition to those 99 CRSs, data for the CRSs currently listed in 
Appendix A were also collected during the 2006 EOU program. These EOU 
data were used to determine whether any changes to the appendix were 
warranted.

c. Additional Considerations

    The agency believes that Appendix A should include CRSs with a 
gamut of features that would robustly assess advanced air bag 
technologies. Automatic air bag suppression systems suppress the air 
bag when a small child or a child in a CRS is placed on the seat, and 
enable the air bag's deployment when most adults occupy the seat. With

[[Page 66788]]

respect to CRSs in Appendix A, LRD systems deploy the air bag in the 
presence of a CRABI dummy in a rear-facing CRS. The design and 
calibration of the advanced air bag system used must perform 
satisfactorily with a wide range of CRSs that could be installed in the 
vehicle. With that in mind, the NPRM considered the following factors 
in choosing CRSs for inclusion in Appendix A.
    First, with LRD systems for infants already being used in some 
vehicles, the agency sought to include rear-facing child restraints of 
varying seat back heights. On the one hand, rear-facing CRSs with 
relatively low seat back heights could in some circumstances present a 
more challenging test of an LRD system, especially one consisting of an 
air bag mounted on the top of the instrument panel, since the back of 
the CRS presents less of a reaction surface (resistance). With a low 
back, the air bag could fully pressurize and interact in a fully 
energized state with the child's head as the bag comes over the top of 
the CRS seat back. However, recent agency testing indicates that CRSs 
with high backs provide significant performance challenges to infant 
LRD systems. Therefore, we sought to include in Appendix A rear-facing 
and convertible CRSs with seat back heights that range from 12.75 to 27 
in 7 8 to diversify the spectrum of seat back heights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The upper end of the spectrum (27 in) represents convertible 
CRSs, which have higher seat back heights than rear-facing-only 
CRSs.
    \8\ The height measurement used for the rear-facing CRSs is the 
height with their base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, features such as handles and sunshields of a rear-facing 
CRS may complicate and challenge the sensing operation of certain 
advanced air bag systems relying on future technologies such as vision-
based advanced air bag systems. To ensure that advanced air bags 
perform well with all types of rear-facing CRSs, the agency 
purposefully includes in Appendix A rear-facing CRSs that have handles 
and sunshields. NHTSA compliance test procedures specify adjustments of 
the handles and sunshields to the positions specified in the standard 
to ensure the robustness of the advanced air bag system.
    Third, since CRSs have been required to have LATCH components since 
September 1, 2002, the agency has decided to replace many of the older 
non-LATCH CRSs in Appendix A with new equivalent LATCH-equipped CRSs 
from the same manufacturer.\9\ On the other hand, when the LATCH 
requirement became effective in 2002 for child restraints, CRS 
manufacturers did not significantly change CRS structures or designs. 
Accordingly, we expect that suppression and LRD systems will react to 
LATCH and non-LATCH CRSs similarly. In addition, very few vehicles will 
have lower anchors in the front outboard passenger seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The newly added car bed is the only CRS replacement that 
came from a different manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Changes

    After considering the factors for decision-making discussed in the 
previous section of this preamble, NHTSA proposed to delete certain 
CRSs from Appendix A and to add others.\10\ The agency noted that some 
CRSs undergo annual cosmetic changes that result in different model 
numbers for the new version, and that some of the model numbers of the 
CRSs in the NPRM could thus be different in the final rule to reflect 
the latest model number. The agency docketed a document entitled, 
``Technical Assessment of Child Restraint Systems for FMVSS No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection, Appendix A,'' that includes dimensional 
information, pictures, and statistical data on the current CRSs in the 
appendix and the CRSs proposed for inclusion in the appendix (Docket 
No. 2007-28710-0002) (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Technical 
Assessment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We noted in the November 2003 FMVSS No. 208 final rule that 
our periodic review of the child restraints in the appendix may 
cause the number of CRSs contained therein to change slightly as we 
identify different trends in the use of CRSs from prior periods. We 
said then that the number of CRSs should not vary by more than 10-20 
percent absent any dramatic changes in the design of restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency proposed to delete six (6) existing CRSs and to add five 
(5) new CRSs (see Table 1 below, which reproduces Table 1 of the NPRM). 
The reasons for each proposed deletion or addition were discussed in 
detail in the NPRM and readers may refer to the NPRM for that 
information (72 FR at 54405-54407). Our proposed deletions were based 
generally on CRSs that did not offer any unique characteristics, those 
that were produced in the smallest quantities, or those that have not 
been in production for some time. If we proposed eliminating a CRS that 
offered a unique characteristic, we proposed to replace it with a 
similar CRS. Our proposed additions also sought to include more LATCH-
equipped CRSs in the appendix.
    In addition, comments were requested on cosmetic replacements of 
other CRSs in Appendix A (see Table 2 below, which reproduces Table 2 
of the NPRM). The reasons for the updates were discussed in detail in 
the NPRM (72 FR at 54407-54408). These changes primarily would update 
the older CRSs in the appendix with newer model CRSs that have the same 
main physical features as the older restraints. To obtain information 
on whether CRSs in Appendix A could be replaced by newer, more 
available models with the same relevant physical features as the 
Appendix A child restraints, we contacted each manufacturer of the 
listed CRS and asked which of their more recently-produced CRSs could 
be considered an equivalent replacement for the Appendix A CRS. With 
one exception related to the Cosco Dream Ride car bed, manufacturers 
were able to suggest a possible replacement.\11\ We decided that the 
CRSs in the Appendix that have been out of production the longest 
(i.e., the hardest CRSs to acquire for testing purposes) should be 
replaced with newer-model CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Subpart A of the appendix lists the Cosco Dream Ride car 
bed which is no longer being manufactured for retail sale. Cosco was 
unable to suggest a replacement for this CRS because the 
manufacturer no longer sells car beds to the general public (the CRS 
is manufactured and sold mainly for special needs accounts). After 
consulting with the major CRS manufacturers, we only found one car 
bed that is being manufactured, the Angel Guard Angel Ride. We 
proposed the Angel Guard Angel Ride as our replacement choice 
because the CRS is available to the general public.

   Table 1--Summary of Proposed Deletions and Additions to Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name                      Type          Appendix  subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Deletions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Handle With Care 191.
Century Assura 4553..  Rear-Facing......  B.
Century Encore 4612..  Convertible......  C.
Cosco Olympian 02803.  Convertible......  C.

[[Page 66789]]


Safety 1st Comfort Ride 22-400.
Britax Expressway ISOFIX......  Forward-Facing...  C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Additions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graco Snugride................  Rear-Facing......  B.
Peg Perego Viaggio IMCC00US.
Cosco Summit DX 22-    Forward-Facing...  C.
 260.
Evenflo Generations 352.
Graco Safeseat (Step 2).......  Combination......  C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2--CRSs That Could Be Replaced With Similar, More Recently
       Produced Restraints, and What Those Replacements Should Be
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       CRS in Appendix
  Appendix A subpart          A           Type of CRS      Replacement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................  Cosco Dream      Car bed........  Angel Guard
                        Ride.                             Angel Ride
                                                          AA240
                                                          3FOF.
B....................  Cosco Arriva 02- Rear-facing....  Cosco Arriva
                        727.                              22-01
                                                          3.
C....................  Britax           Convertible....  Britax
                        Roundabout.                       Roundabout
                                                          E9L02
                                                          .
C....................  Century Encore   Convertible....  Graco
                        \12\.                             ComfortSport.
C....................  Evenflo Horizon  Convertible....  Evenflo Tribute
                        V.                                5 Deluxe
                                                          379.
D....................  Century Next     Combination....  Graco Cherished
                        Step.                             Cargo.
D....................  Cosco High Back  Booster........  Cosco Hi Back
                        Booster.                          Booster 22-209.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Comments and Agency Responses on CRSs in Appendix A

    The agency received comments on the proposal from the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),\13\ Porsche Cars North America, 
Inc. (Porsche), TRW Automotive (TRW), Ferrari, General Motors (GM), the 
Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), and from community 
interest groups Safe Ride News and Traffic Safety Projects. Commenters 
overwhelmingly supported the deletions identified in Table 1 and Table 
2 and generally supported the proposed additions identified in the 
tables, with many suggesting further amendments to Appendix A. Several 
commenters raised concerns about the effective date. For example, the 
Alliance stated that it believes that as many as possible of the 
unavailable CRSs in Appendix A should be replaced with respect to new 
vehicle models, but manufacturers should be allowed to continue to 
certify previously certified models using the existing version of the 
appendix for at least three years.\14\ In contrast, Safe Ride News 
expressed concern that the proposed lead time ``could stretch out the 
wait before these new CRSs are introduced for testing to Model Year 
2010 or later.'' Some commenters asked for clarification of testing 
issues, and there were a number of ideas suggested for improving the 
ease and timeliness of future amendments to Appendix A and for 
selecting the CRSs that should be included in the appendix. These and 
other issues are addressed in this and the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We later realized that reference to the Encore was in 
error.
    \13\ The Alliance is made up of BMW group, Chrysler LLC, Ford 
Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, 
Toyota, and Volkswagen.
    \14\ In a petition for rulemaking dated April 27, 2007, the 
Alliance requested NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 208 to allow 
manufacturers the option of certifying vehicles to any edition of 
Appendix A for five model years after the edition first becomes 
effective. (In its comment to the September 25, 2007 NPRM, the 
Alliance reduced the suggested 5-year compliance period to 3 years 
for this effort to revise Appendix A, recognizing that the appendix 
has not been amended in several years.)
    The petition also requested that the agency commit to amending 
the appendix every three years and revise the view the agency 
announced in the past that the appendix should be amended annually. 
The Alliance believes that annual revisions are not needed to 
protect children because experience has shown that, despite the fact 
that the appendix has not been amended since 2003, there is no known 
incident in which a child in a CRS in the front seat of a vehicle 
equipped with advanced air bags received a serious injury due to the 
deployment of an air bag. In addition, the Alliance believed that 
annual updates to the appendix is inconsistent with the realities of 
the automobile industry, because retesting and recertifying existing 
vehicle models every year as new CRSs are added to the appendix 
would, as the petitioner stated, ``create a tremendous burden on 
manufacturers which * * * [in light of the absence of known injuries 
to a child caused by an advanced air bag system] would yield little 
or no safety benefits.'' The petitioner stated that it recognized 
that ``in the event of some unanticipated safety need, such as the 
introduction of an entirely new style of CRS that captures a 
significant portion of the market, the agency could revise the 
appendix--subject to notice and lead time constraints--without 
waiting for three years from the prior update.'' The agency is 
responding to issues raised in the petition both in this final rule, 
and in a separate rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accompanying this final rule is an updated Technical Assessment of 
Child Restraint Systems that we have placed in the docket for this 
final rule (``2008 Technical Assessment''). The assessment contains 
dimensional information and pictures of the CRSs adopted into Appendix 
A by this final rule, and statistical data of past EOU data.
    To improve the clarity of the appendix, we have reformatted the 
tables of Appendix A and have set forth an Appendix A-1 which 
incorporates the revisions adopted by this final rule.

a. Deletions

    All commenters supported the proposed deletion of the six CRSs from 
Appendix A (described in Table 1, above). No commenter opposed the 
deletions. Several commenters suggested that we refresh all the CRSs in 
the appendix.
    Agency Response: We are adopting the proposed deletions for the 
reasons discussed in the NPRM. Regarding the Britax Expressway ISOFIX, 
this CRS is removed from Appendix A effective on the date of 
publication of this final rule.
    Deleting and replacing all the CRSs in the appendix is outside the 
scope of the present rulemaking. However, we concur with the view that 
circumstances may warrant updating more than 10 to 20 percent of the 
number of CRSs in the appendix. The allocation of agency

[[Page 66790]]

resources have hampered our periodic updates of the appendix, so it 
could be prudent for a rulemaking, such as today's final rule, to 
affect more than 10 to 20 percent of the CRSs in the appendix.

b. Additions (Identified in Table 1)

    With the exception of the Peg Perego Viaggio IMCC00US, the 
five child restraints that we proposed to add to Appendix A were 
supported by commenters. Accordingly, with the exception of the Peg 
Perego Viaggio IMCC00US, we are adopting the CRSs for the 
reasons provided in the NPRM. However, several commenters had questions 
about some of the restraints and requested clarification of the 
proposal.
1. Proposed Inclusion of Graco Snugride to Subpart B
    GM and the Alliance stated that the NPRM did not provide a model 
number in Table 1 or in the proposed regulatory text, while the 
preamble and 2007 Technical Assessment denoted model 8643. TRW 
noted that it observed that myriad variants of the Snugride exist which 
appear to have essentially similar construction to the 8643 
model and which would likely perform identically in suppression or LRD 
tests.
    Agency Response: Our intent was not to provide a model number for 
this CRS in the regulatory text. The NPRM mistakenly included the model 
number for the Graco Snugride in the preamble and the 2007 Technical 
Assessment.
    Due to the dynamic nature of the CRS industry, when selecting new 
CRSs for the appendix, the agency sought to provide, to the extent 
possible, generic model numbers. The agency's intention was to make it 
easier for vehicle manufacturers to find the newly added CRSs by 
providing model numbers that do not specify patterns for soft goods, 
type of padding, etc., i.e., for items that would not affect the 
performance of the advanced air bag system. For some CRSs, such as for 
Evenflo child restraints, this meant requiring simply a number 
prefix,\15\ or just a name, such as for Graco child restraints, but 
some CRSs required complete model numbers, such as the child restraints 
produced by Cosco. Thus, for the Graco Snugride no model number was 
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In the appendix, the additional numbers following the 
prefix are indicated by ``X''s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Inclusion of Peg Perego Primo Viaggio IMCC00US to 
Subpart B
    Ferrari stated that the model number proposed for this CRS was out 
of production and recommended the addition of the new model number 
IMUN00US. TRW stated that the rubber inserts in the belt slots of the 
Primo Viaggio have a tendency to grab the seat belt webbing, making it 
difficult to achieve the maximum 134 N belt tension called for in FMVSS 
No. 208.
    Agency Response: We agree to include model IMUN00US instead of 
IMCC00US. Market data indicate that the model IMCC00US was discontinued 
in August 2007 and replaced with the new model name and number Peg 
Perego Primo Viaggio SIP IMUN00US. The changes made for the new version 
of the Primo Viaggio SIP are a new handlebar shape and more ear/head 
padding.
    NHTSA installed the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio in seventeen (17) 
model year (MY) 2008 vehicles and found that while the rubber inserts 
do make it more difficult to achieve the desired belt tension, the 
desired belt tension is attainable. We note that, to achieve the 
specified load, the CRS base was pre-loaded prior to installing the CRS 
onto the base. Since the IMUN00US is similar structurally to the 
IMCC00US and the specified FMVSS No. 208 belt tension is achievable 
using the IMUN00US, we are adding the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio SIP 
IMUN00US to Appendix A. Photographs of the two CRSs can be found in the 
2008 Technical Assessment.
3. Proposed Inclusion of the Evenflo Generations 352 to 
Subpart C
    The NPRM characterized the Evenflo Generations as a convertible 
CRS.
    GM and the Alliance stated that this CRS was not on the 
manufacturer's website. Ferrari and TRW pointed out that this CRS 
should be classified as a combination CRS. Ferrari stated that it 
supports the addition of the Evenflo Generations only if it will be 
exempted from testing in a rearward facing configuration. TRW stated 
that there were similar models to the CRS, such as the Generations 
3521804.
    Agency Response: We are adding the CRS to Appendix A, but we agree 
with Ferrari and TRW that this CRS was categorized incorrectly in the 
NPRM as a convertible CRS. This CRS is a forward-facing-only 
combination CRS. Accordingly, it is listed under the booster car seat 
section of the manufacturer's Web site.
    As explained earlier in this preamble, for purposes of Appendix A, 
Evenflo child restraints can be identified by a generic model number 
consisting of a number prefix. The 352 model number provided 
in the NPRM was merely a prefix of the intended model number. To avoid 
confusion, we have revised the model number to indicate that the actual 
model number is several digits long and that the 352 was simply a 
prefix. The similar model observed by TRW beginning with the 352 prefix 
is thus an acceptable model.
    With regard to combination CRSs, Appendix A categories were 
developed prior to the development of combination CRSs. Therefore, 
there is not a subpart of the appendix specific to these restraints. 
These seats can perform as a forward-facing harness restraint as well 
as a booster seat using a vehicle's seat belt, so they can technically 
accommodate a one-year-old, three-year-old, and six-year-old dummy. 
When considering which subpart of the appendix to categorize these 
seats, we noted that the FMVSS No. 208 advanced air bag system 
requirements do not require combination CRSs in Subpart C to be tested 
with the six-year-old dummy. (See FMVSS No. 208, S23.) Therefore, to 
ensure adequate testing of all the modes a combination CRS can be used 
for, we are listing the Evenflo Generations 352xxxx in both Subparts C 
and D of Appendix A.
    The agency is responding to Ferrari's comment that the CRS should 
only be used in rearward facing configurations in the section of this 
preamble entitled, ``Testing Issues.''
4. Proposed Inclusion of Cosco Summit Deluxe 22-260 to Subpart 
C
    GM stated that it could not find a CRS with the precise name and 
model number provided in the NPRM and suggested the Summit Deluxe High 
Back Booster Car Seat model 22565 or the Summit High Back Booster Car 
Seat model 22260, noting that both have very similar appearance and 
look like the CRS in the photograph in the 2007 Technical Assessment. 
The Alliance also pointed out that it could not identify any Cosco CRS 
with the precise name and model number identified in the NPRM. Ferrari 
supported the addition of the Summit Deluxe ``only if it will be 
exempted from testing in rearward facing configurations.''
    Agency Response: The agency concurs with the GM comment and is 
adopting the Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster model 22-262 into 
Subparts C and D of the appendix. A picture and measurements of the CRS 
can be found in the 2008 Technical Assessment. The agency is responding 
to Ferrari's comment that the CRS should only be used in rearward 
facing configurations in the section of this preamble entitled, 
``Testing Issues.''

[[Page 66791]]

5. Proposed Inclusion of the Graco SafeSeat (Step 2) 8B02 to 
Subpart C
    The Alliance stated that this CRS was on the manufacturer's Web 
site but that the Alliance was advised by Graco that the company has 
stopped manufacturing a model with the number or will do so in the very 
near future. The Alliance stated that NHTSA should substitute the new 
model name/number that Graco will use for this CRS. TRW stated that 
Model 8B02 was not found at any of six local large retailers, 
while a very similar model 8B05 was found at a local retailer and an 
online source was located for this model.
    Agency Response: As discussed earlier, we mistakenly included the 
model number in the preamble. A model number is not needed. A Graco 
representative (see agency ex parte memorandum in the docket for this 
final rule) confirmed that Graco model numbers identify only cosmetic 
features and that identifying the shell does not necessitate 
identifying a model number. Therefore, the Alliance's concerns about 
that particular model being discontinued or TRW's concern about not 
finding that particular model at large retail stores is not a problem. 
(In addition, this CRS was incorrectly categorized as a combination CRS 
in Table 1 of the NPRM. As stated in the preamble of that document, the 
child restraint is a forward-facing only CRS.) However, we are adding 
the word ``Toddler'' to the name because Graco's Web site and the EOU 
Web site both list this CRS as the Graco Toddler SafeSeat. Thus, this 
final rule adopts the Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2.

c. Updating Other CRSs in Appendix A (Identified in Table 2)

    Commenters generally supported the seven changes identified in 
Table 2 of the NPRM preamble (the same Table 2 above of today's 
document).
1. Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF (Subpart A)
    No commenter objected to including this CRS, but TRW stated that it 
was unable to find a retail source for this CRS. TRW also expressed 
concern about the size of this CRS because, the commenter believed, 
vehicles may not have enough seat belt webbing to reach around it with 
the vehicle seat fully forward. TRW recommended specifying in FMVSS No. 
208 that when the vehicle seat belt lacks the length to reach around a 
CRS, the vehicle seat is moved to the ``first position rearward of full 
forward where the seat belt will go around the CRS.''
    Agency Response: The agency is replacing the Cosco Dream Ride with 
the Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF, a car bed with a 3-point harness, 
for the reasons provided in the NPRM. The CRS can be ordered directly 
through Angel Guard and through other sources listed on the 
manufacturer's Web site (http://www.angel-guard.com). The agency is 
responding to TRW's concern about vehicles' having sufficient belt 
length to encircle the restraint in the section of this preamble 
entitled, ``Testing Issues.''
2. Cosco Arriva 22-013 (Subpart B)
    In their comments, GM and the Alliance stated that they could not 
find this CRS on the manufacturer's Web site. TRW also could not find 
any sources for this CRS and was informed that it is being phased out. 
Furthermore, TRW requested clarification on whether the Arriva 02-727 
should be tested with its base.
    Agency Response: We are adopting the Cosco Arriva 22-
013PAW, a rear-facing CRS with a 5-point harness, to replace its older 
counterpart as proposed. The Cosco Arriva 22-013PAW is mainly 
distributed to hospitals, health departments, and child safety 
businesses or organizations and is not sold at retailers (these CRSs 
are called ``institutional CRSs''). However, this CRS is easily 
available to the public as it can be ordered through Cosco or its 
distributor, National Safety Resources.\16\ We will test the CRS with 
the base 22-999WHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A representative of the manufacturer verified that they are 
contemplating phasing out this CRS; however, they said that they 
would continue producing it as long as there was a demand for it 
(see agency ex parte memorandum in the docket for this final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Britax Roundabout E9L02 (Subpart C)
    The only comment received on this CRS was from TRW, which supported 
the change. TRW stated that this CRS was found at large retailers.
    Agency Response: We are making the proposed change. However, we 
will refer to the new restraint as the Britax Roundabout E9L02xx; the 
last two digits of the model number are not needed because they 
indicate a specific fabric design. The Britax Roundabout E9L02xx is a 
convertible CRS with a 5-point harness.
4. Graco ComfortSport (Subpart C)
    The NPRM requested comments on replacing the Century Encore with 
the Graco ComfortSport. However, the reference to the Century Encore 
was a mistake; that CRS was proposed to be deleted from Appendix A.
    GM and the Alliance realized the mistake, stating that the Graco 
ComfortSport is actually a replacement for the Century STE 1000, not 
the Century Encore. In addition, the Alliance asked for the 
identification of a model number for the Graco ComfortSport. TRW stated 
that it was advised that the model number provided in the 2007 
Technical Assessment was recalled and that a new version was becoming 
available. TRW noted that it purchased a ComfortSport 8C00 for 
evaluation, because it was advised that all ComfortSports have the same 
shell.
    Agency Response: Commenters are correct that we meant the Graco 
ComfortSport to replace the Century STE 1000. (The Century STE 1000 and 
the Century Encore have essentially the same shell, thus the 
ComfortSport could have replaced either of these CRSs.) No commenter 
opposed the addition of the Graco ComfortSport, a convertible CRS with 
a 5-point harness. We are thus adopting the proposed change.
    As discussed earlier, a model number is not necessary to adequately 
identify this Graco CRS. However, we note that several ComfortSport 
models produced between January 2, 2007 and August 31, 2007 were 
recalled due to possible misrouting of the LATCH belt during assembly. 
Graco has assured us that new versions are available and that the model 
numbers of the new versions end in the number two (2). However, there 
is still no need to specify a model number for this CRS in Appendix A 
as no substantive changes were made to the CRS that will affect the 
performance of a suppression or LRD system.
5. Evenflo Tribute V Deluxe 379 (Subpart C)
    The NPRM requested comments on replacing the Evenflo Horizon V with 
the Evenflo Tribute V Deluxe 379. The only comment on this proposed 
change was from TRW, which stated that it could not find the Evenflo 
Tribute V Deluxe with the model number provided in the NPRM.
    Agency Response: As explained above, the ``379'' is just a prefix 
that precedes four other digits of the 7-digit model number. We are 
clarifying the regulatory text to make this clear. Further, we are 
removing the ``Deluxe'' specification because it only designates the 
fabric used and the addition of a cup holder, which are features that 
will not likely affect the performance of a suppression or LRD system. 
Accordingly, this final rule replaces the Evenflo Horizon V with the 
Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx, a convertible CRS with a 5-point harness.

[[Page 66792]]

6. Graco Cherished Cargo (Subpart D)
    GM and the Alliance stated that they could not find the Cherished 
Cargo on the manufacturer's Web site, although several models that 
share the name Cargo do appear. TRW claimed that Graco advised them 
that this CRS was discontinued, but that all Cargo models such as the 
Platinum, Ultra, etc., use the same shell and are very similar. TRW 
recommended we avoid the Cherished Cargo and choose a different, more 
readily available model of the Cargo series, such as the Platinum 
Cargo.
    Agency Response: For the reasons of availability raised by the 
commenters, we are replacing the Century Next Step with the Graco 
Platinum Cargo, a forward-facing-only combination CRS with a 5-point 
harness. It will be listed in both Subparts C and D of the appendix. 
Graco has informed NHTSA that the Cherished Cargo was not discontinued, 
but that retailers no longer want to carry this CRS in stock (see 
agency ex parte memorandum in the docket for this final rule). Graco 
also confirmed that the Platinum Cargo has the same shell as the 
Cherished Cargo and it is more readily available. As shown in 
photographs of the Platinum Cargo and the Cherished Cargo, the CRSs are 
interchangeable (see the 2008 Technical Assessment).
7. Cosco High Back Booster 22-209 (Subpart D)
    The NPRM requested comments on replacing the Cosco High Back 
Booster with the Cosco High Back Booster 22-209. TRW commented that it 
could not find this seat at any of the six large retailers it searched. 
They found similar models such as the 22-206 at two of the six 
retailers.
    Agency Response: We are adopting the Cosco High Back Booster 22-
209, a forward-facing only combination CRS with a 5-point harness into 
Subparts C and D of the appendix. As of July 28, 2008, the 
manufacturer's Web site has a list of retailers for this CRS on its Web 
site.

V. Compliance Date

    Consistent with statements NHTSA made in the November 19, 2003 
FMVSS No. 208 final rule regarding lead time (68 FR at 65188), the 
agency proposed that the compliance date for the proposed changes to 
Appendix A be the next model year introduced one year after publication 
of a final rule modifying Appendix A. The agency believed that the lead 
time would be sufficiently long to provide vehicle manufacturers time 
to procure the needed child restraints, test vehicles, and certify the 
air bag systems to FMVSS No. 208, while ensuring the satisfactory 
performance of vehicles' suppression and LRD systems in an expeditious 
manner.
    This section addresses the following comments relating to the 
compliance date.
    1. The Alliance agreed that the proposed effective date of 
September 1, 2009 (the beginning of the next model year introduced one 
year after the anticipated date of publication of the final rule) is 
reasonable with respect to new vehicle models and to new child 
protection systems that will be utilized for the first time in MY 2010 
(or later) vehicles. However, the commenter stated that requiring 
vehicle manufacturers to recertify existing vehicles utilizing a 
different set of CRSs would impose a tremendous burden on those 
manufacturers. The Alliance urged the agency to provide manufacturers 
the option of continuing to certify, for at least three years, ``carry-
over'' models that were previously certified to the existing version of 
Appendix A. The commenter stated that, on average, over 75 percent of 
its members' MY 2010 models will be equipped with ``child protection 
systems that are identical to those in the equivalent MY 2009 models.'' 
The commenter stated that in all likelihood these models will be 
certified using the CRSs on the existing Appendix A, and that requiring 
them to be certified using the CRSs on the new Appendix would be 
extremely burdensome, ``even apart from whether the child protection 
systems in those models would need to be redesigned or recalibrated to 
assure compliance with the standard.''
    Porsche, a member of the Alliance, commented in support of the 
Alliance's comments, but added that the model lifespan of Porsche 
vehicles is typically longer than the industry norms, lasting for seven 
years or more. Thus, Porsche requested that NHTSA allow manufacturers 
to use the existing version of Appendix A for up to five years 
following the effective date of the final rule.\17\ ``Any shorter time 
period would likely result in a significant amount of unnecessary 
testing, especially under circumstances when most or many of the child 
restraints on the list are being replaced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Porsche noted that its request is similar to the petition 
for rulemaking from the Alliance requesting NHTSA to provide a five-
year period for carry-over models that were certified to the 
existing version of Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. GM, an Alliance member, requested that the effective date of the 
changes in the final rule be no sooner than September 1, 2010. GM 
submitted confidential information that provided an estimate of ``the 
amount of work needed to evaluate, potentially modify, and validate'' 
its carry-over vehicle platforms and believed that the work could not 
be completed by ``the next model year introduced one year after 
publication of the final rule.'' GM believed that delaying the 
effective date until September 1, 2010 would not increase any risks to 
safety, because it has no indications ``that there are any CRSs in use 
that do not properly classify'' with their advanced air bag systems.
    3. Ferrari addressed the effective date for the Table 2 changes. 
The commenter stated that there would be an unnecessary burden on the 
manufacturers if existing vehicles models already certified to comply 
with the old CRSs in Table 2 have to be certified again for compliance 
with the new CRSs. Ferrari suggested that NHTSA add a provision to 
FMVSS No. 208 stating that if a vehicle manufacturer previously 
certified a vehicle model using an older CRS listed in Table 2 and has 
so certified prior to the listing of the newer equivalent CRS in 
Appendix A, then the vehicle manufacturer does not have to retest said 
vehicle model using the newer CRS. Ferrari believed that ``This 
approach avoids costly retesting and since the newer CRS is by 
definition `equivalent' to the older CRS, there is no negative effect 
on safety.''
    4. In contrast to the above comments, some comments supported the 
proposed effective date or expressed concern that it was too long. TRW 
stated that it saw no concerns with the proposed effective date and 
believed that it provides sufficient time to adopt the requirements of 
the proposed rule. Safe Ride News believed that the proposed effective 
date would be ``too long to wait.'' The commenter was concerned that 
because the appendix has not been updated in years, it is no longer 
representative of heavier CRSs that have been on the market for several 
years. Safe Ride News did not consider it an unreasonable request to 
shorten the lead-time for manufacturers since the new CRSs will not be 
difficult to acquire.
    Agency Response: NHTSA acknowledges that there are competing 
considerations in updating Appendix A, specifically, the need to have a 
representative list while maintaining some stability to minimize the 
certification burden. Having the list reflect real-world use of a 
variety of child restraints, and ensuring the compatibility of 
suppression and LRD systems with those restraints, argue for

[[Page 66793]]

expediency. On the other hand, time constraints and costs associated 
with certification burdens resulting from changes to the appendix 
dictate that there are limits to how close in time an effective date 
can be set. Moreover, as part of the exercise of balancing those 
interests, we also consider the actual effect that the change to 
Appendix A has on the robustness of the advanced air bag system, i.e., 
whether the change to the appendix will result in an actual real-world 
safety improvement.
    NHTSA evaluated the 2000-2007 EOU measurement data to determine if 
there have been significant shifts in the characteristics of CRSs since 
2000 and did not observe any indication of definitive shifts in the CRS 
characteristics pertinent to air bag performance. (See 2008 Technical 
Assessment.) For the few changes we did observe, the changes do not 
appear enough to alter an advanced air bag system's performance. NHTSA 
undertook indicant tests of seventeen (17) MY 2008 vehicles to assist 
in determining whether the CRSs being added to the appendix would 
require manufacturers to redesign their advanced air bag systems. (See 
matrix in the 2008 Technical Assessment.) The tests indicate that the 
suppression systems will continue to meet FMVSS No. 208 suppression 
requirements. This finding is consistent with GM's comment that its 
vehicles continue to classify CRSs correctly when tested with the CRSs 
newly added to Appendix A.
    The agency is currently working on a response to the Alliance's 
April 2007 petition; therefore, the suggestions of the petitioners that 
there should be a set lead time period of 3 or 5 years for re-
certification of carry-over models will be addressed in a subsequent 
rulemaking action. However, to address the recertification concerns 
with respect to this Appendix A update, we have decided that a 
balancing of the competing interests can be effectively realized by 
maintaining the compliance date of September 1, 2009 (the beginning of 
the next model year introduced approximately one year after date of 
publication of this final rule), while phasing-in the requirement.\18\ 
The effective date and phase-in schedule apply to all vehicles, without 
differentiation between new and ``carry-over'' models (these are 
vehicles that were previously certified to the existing Appendix A). 
Under the phase-in, 50 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2009 must be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when 
tested with the CRSs on the revised appendix (which we have designated 
``Appendix A-1''), and all vehicles manufactured on or after September 
1, 2010 must be so certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with 
the Appendix A-1 child restraints. The September 1, 2009 date ensures 
that suppression and LRD systems will be tested with representative 
child restraints in an expeditious manner and thus maintains the 
robustness of the FMVSS No. 208 test and the soundness of the child 
protection systems, while the phase-in addresses the vehicle 
manufacturers' certification burdens. Since there are no marked shifts 
in the dimensional characteristics of CRSs, a phase-in will not have a 
negative impact on child safety.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As with all phase-ins, the agency is adopting a reporting 
and recordkeeping requirement to facilitate the agency's enforcement 
of the standard. These reporting and recordkeeping requirements will 
be set forth in 49 CFR Part 585, Subpart D.
    \19\ We are submitting a request for OMB clearance of the 
collection of information required under a phase-in (for compliance 
purposes, manufacturers must keep records of the vehicles certified 
to the current Appendix A or to the amended Appendix A, and report 
that information to NHTSA so that the agency knows which CRSs to use 
to test vehicles to FMVSS No. 208 suppression and LRD requirements). 
We request comments on the collection of information. See the 
section of this preamble entitled, ``Regulatory Analyses and 
Notices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The phase-in has a practical effect of permitting 50 percent of 
carry-over vehicles to continue to certify to the existing appendix for 
a period, albeit for a shorter period than the Alliance's suggested 
period of 3 years or Porsche's suggested period of 5 years. (A 
manufacturer may choose to have new model vehicles or carry-over 
vehicles of established models, or both, comprise the 50 percent of 
vehicles that can be phased-in to the requirement to certify to the 
revised Appendix A.) The ability to carry over a large percentage of 
its vehicles for a year works to alleviate compliance burdens on 
manufacturers.
    On the other hand, in response to Safe Ride News, we do not agree 
that the September 1, 2009 date could be moved up. Although the CRSs 
newly added to Appendix A will be more readily available than the 
current seats, recertifying to the new appendix will involve more than 
just procuring the new CRSs. Vehicle manufacturers need time to test 
and certify their vehicles. Further, as noted above, we have not seen 
indication of significant shifts in the CRS characteristics pertinent 
to air bag performance, so there is not a need to expedite the 
September 1, 2009 date based on potential real-world safety benefits 
that could be gained.
    We are denying Ferrari's suggestion that we specify in FMVSS No. 
208 that if a vehicle manufacturer previously certified a vehicle model 
using an older CRS that was replaced by this final rule by an 
``equivalent'' CRS (these CRSs were listed in Table 2 of the NPRM and 
Table 2 of this preamble), the vehicle manufacturer does not have to 
retest said vehicle model using the newer CRS. We do not believe that 
such a provision is necessary or appropriate. NHTSA does not require 
vehicle manufacturers to undertake any of the testing specified in the 
FMVSSs; a manufacturer just needs to ensure that its vehicles meet the 
requirements of the applicable standard when NHTSA tests the 
manufacturer's vehicles using the procedures specified in the standard. 
Thus, a manufacturer has the discretion to decide what testing, if any, 
is needed to certify the vehicle with the updated appendix.

VI. Early Compliance and Picking and Choosing of CRSs

    The NPRM proposed to provide manufacturers the option of early 
compliance with the amended list, i.e., it was proposed that 
manufacturers may choose to certify their vehicles with the updated 
Appendix A prior to the effective date of the provision, as long as the 
manufacturer notifies the agency that it is exercising this option. 
However, NHTSA proposed that manufacturers choosing the early 
compliance option would not be permitted to pick and choose among the 
CRSs that would be newly added by the final rule. Vehicle manufacturers 
choosing the early compliance option would have to ensure that their 
vehicles meet the advanced air bag requirements when NHTSA uses all of 
the newly-added CRSs (along with the CRSs that were not affected by the 
amendment). NHTSA proposed this limitation to maintain the integrity of 
the appendix: The child restraints in each appendix are each part of a 
comprehensive set based on their physical characteristics and as such, 
should be maintained as a set.
    Agency Response: No commenter objected to the proposal, although 
the Alliance stated that lead time constraints make it very unlikely 
that any manufacturer will be able to certify its MY 2009 vehicles to 
the new version, since, the commenter stated, the sales of these 
vehicles generally commence in the fall of 2008 or earlier. We are 
ratifying the provisions discussed above without change. Manufacturers 
may not pick and choose to certify with some CRSs from Appendix A and 
some from Appendix A-1.

[[Page 66794]]

VII. Testing Issues

    Commenters raised questions relating to how the agency will use the 
CRSs in Appendix A. These questions are answered below.

a. Positioning of Adjustable Features

    TRW recommends that NHTSA specify what position(s) the adjustable 
features, e.g., adjustable headrests (Evenflo Generations) and 
positionable ``feet'' (Graco Snugride and Evenflo Discovery Adjust 
Right), should be in during testing because, the commenter stated, they 
may affect their installation in a vehicle and/or how the CRS interacts 
with the vehicle seat, suppression system sensors, or deploying air 
bags.
    Agency Response: We do not agree that minor adjustments need to be 
specified in the standard. For the FMVSS No. 208 tests conducted with 
CRSs, the standard's test procedures state that the installer should 
follow, to the extent possible, the child restraint manufacturer's 
directions regarding proper installation of the CRS. Those directions 
generally provide sufficient information to conduct the compliance 
test. For example, Evenflo's instructions for the Evenflo Generations 
state that the headrest should be positioned immediately above the 
harness slots in use. For other adjustments, the standard is silent 
because the adjustment is irrelevant for the compliance test; it does 
not matter how the feature is adjusted because the adjustment does not 
affect the performance results.
    For a few adjustments, FMVSS No. 208 specifically overrides the 
manufacturer's instructions but is clear in its instruction in those 
instances. For example, the agency's FMVSS No. 208 test procedure (TP 
208) does not require that the CRS be at the manufacturer's recommended 
angle.\20\ In its comment on the NPRM, TRW recommended rewording FMVSS 
No. 208 and TP208 to require that the CRS level indicator, if present, 
be in the recommended range. We disagree with this suggestion. FMVSS 
No. 208 does not specifically require that the CRS level indicator be 
in the recommended range because the use of positioning devices, such 
as rolled up towels, do not allow repeatable installations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FMVSS No. 208, S20.2.1.5(c) states: ``* * * secure the 
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the child 
restraint manufacturer's directions regarding proper installation of 
the restraint for the orientation being installed.'' The TP 208-13, 
Data Sheet 17, Page 111, states: ``Do not use any positioning 
devices such as towels.'' Therefore, even though the CRS 
manufacturer's directions specify a recommended angle, achieving it 
will not be required for compliance tests if the use of positioning 
devices is necessary.
    \21\ In the May 12, 2000 Advanced Air Bag Rule, NHTSA 
acknowledged that some consumers do use rolled up towels or blankets 
and that manufacturers may need to address this in designing their 
advanced air bag systems. The agency stated: ``We note that seat-
based systems may, however, need to `read' the presence of a rear-
facing infant restraint that has been stabilized with a rolled up 
towel or blanket in accordance with the restraint manufacturer's 
instructions. While we will not use such objects in conducting our 
compliance tests, the presence of a towel or blanket under the most 
rearward portion of the child restraint is a real world scenario 
which some seat-based systems may need to accommodate.'' However, 
for purposes of conducting our compliance tests, as explained above 
we do not use the towels or blankets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Testing the Car Bed

    In its comment on the proposal to adopt the Angel Guard Angel Ride 
AA2403FOF car bed into Appendix A, TRW was concerned that due to the 
large size of the car bed, some vehicles may not have enough seat belt 
length to reach around this CRS with the vehicle seat fully forward. 
TRW recommended that FMVSS No. 208 state that when the vehicle seat 
belt length is insufficient to reach around a CRS, the vehicle seat is 
to be moved to the first position rearward of full forward where the 
seat belt will go around the CRS.
    Agency Response: We agree to add a provision to FMVSS No. 208 to 
address this concern. However, we note that TRW did not identify 
whether it was expressing concern about the belt length of a specific 
vehicle. FMVSS No. 208, S7.1, requires seat belt assemblies to 
accommodate a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any position. 
That standard defines the hip circumference of a 95th percentile adult 
male as being 47.2 inches (in). The Angel Guard car bed is 
approximately 53.75 in around its perimeter (based on a width of 21.75 
in and two depth measurements of 16 in). While the car bed appears to 
require 7 in of additional webbing, many vehicle manufacturers provide 
additional belt length beyond the minimum required by the FMVSS. 
According to 2007 and 2008 ``Buying a Safer Car'' information,\22\ 
manufacturers that provide longer seat belts typically provide an 
average of 24.67 in of extra belt length for the right front passenger 
position. However, for those vehicles that may not have sufficient 
webbing to reach around the Angel Guard with the seat in the full 
forward position, we are amending FMVSS No. 208, S20.2.3.2(a), to 
provide a provision similar to the one in FMVSS No. 208, S20.1.2, which 
allows the seat to be moved rearward if there is contact by the CRS or 
test dummy with the instrument panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ http://www.safercar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Testing Forward-Facing-Only CRSs in Rear-Facing Configurations

    Ferrari stated that it supported the addition of forward-facing-
only CRSs to subpart C of Appendix A only if the CRSs are excluded from 
testing in a rear-facing configuration. Ferrari believed that forward-
facing-only CRSs should not be used for testing in a rear-facing 
configuration and that FMVSS No. 208 and subpart C of the appendix 
should be revised to exclude forward-facing-only CRSs from all types of 
rear-facing testing. Ferrari also recommended splitting subpart C into 
two lists, convertibles (C1) and forward-facing-only CRSs (C2), and to 
revise S20.2.1.1, S20.2.2.1, and S20.4.2 to identify only CRSs from 
subpart C1.
    Agency Response: We partially agree and partially disagree with 
this comment. In the NPRM we proposed to include the following 
language, for the belted tests under subpart C: ``Any child restraint 
listed in this subpart that does not have manufacturer instructions for 
using it in a rear-facing position is excluded from use in testing in a 
belted rear-facing configuration under S20.2.1.1(a) and S20.4.2.'' This 
provision already exists in subpart C with regard to S20.2.1.1(a). We 
proposed expanding the exclusion to S20.4.2 because there are forward-
facing-only CRSs in subpart C that cannot be belted in a rear-facing 
configuration as specified by S20.4.2. Ferrari's comment was supportive 
of the proposal, and we received no comment in opposition. We are thus 
adopting the proposed language in the final rule. However, FMVSS No. 
208, S20.2.2.1, is an unbelted rear-facing configuration test that 
includes forward-facing-only CRSs as a misuse condition. Since this is 
an unbelted test, belt routing is not an issue, so forward-facing-only 
CRSs are not excluded from testing under this rear-facing configuration 
test. Such an exclusion was not part of the NPRM.
    We are not incorporating Ferrari's recommendation to create two 
sub-categories in Subpart C in this rulemaking, but we will consider it 
when undertaking future updates of Appendix A.

d. Specifying the Type of Harness Used for Testing

    TRW recommends clarifying which type of harness/belt type should be 
used when testing the CRSs because different types may have been 
available for the same model number.
    Agency Response: We disagree. In the NPRM preamble we specified the

[[Page 66795]]

harness type for the CRSs proposed in Table 1 for the reader's 
convenience. Since the harness type is not an influencing factor in 
suppression or LRD test results, the harness types specified were just 
an indication of the type present in the CRSs evaluated, for 
illustration purposes. The specifications were not intended to be and 
are not binding as to the specific harness type with which the agency 
must test. This final rule also specifies in the preamble the harness 
type for the CRSs newly added to Appendix A for the reader's 
convenience, and is not meant to require that the CRS with only that 
type of harness type would be used for compliance testing.

VIII. Suggestions for Future Amendments

    Commenters made a number of suggestions for improving the ease and 
timeliness of future amendments to Appendix A and for selecting the 
CRSs that should be included in the appendix. The more significant 
suggestions are addressed below.

a. Publishing a Yearly Bulletin

    AORC and TRW suggested the agency should work with CRS 
manufacturers to publish a ``Bulletin'' annually, which lists suitable 
equivalent model numbers and/or names to those listed in the appendix.
    Agency Response: We do not consider an annual bulletin published by 
NHTSA necessary or appropriate at this time. For today's final rule we 
made every effort to ensure that the CRS models we are including in 
Appendix A will be available, such as by making sure the model numbers 
we list do not refer to features immaterial to the purposes of the 
appendix, such as a soft good (i.e., upholstery, fabric) design. This 
does not preclude industry from working together to identify equivalent 
CRS models and publishing a yearly bulletin for industry to use.

b. Meaning of ``Available for Purchase''

    The Alliance stated that even if the agency adopts the changes to 
Appendix A proposed in the NPRM,

it will still be possible that some of the CRSs listed on the 
revised Appendix A that is ultimately adopted will not be available 
at the time the final rule is published. The Alliance urges NHTSA to 
confirm that if that scenario were to occur, it will continue its 
policy, first articulated in its November 19, 2003 notice, to `not 
use the unavailable or altered CRS for compliance testing, and the 
manufacturers would likewise be relieved of any burden to procure 
the CRS or use it to test for suppression.' [Footnote omitted.] 68 
FR at 65188. Moreover, the Alliance urges the agency to confirm that 
for a CRS listed on any amended version of Appendix A to be deemed 
`available for purchase' (which is the term NHTSA used in the 
November 2003 notice), it must be available from its manufacturer on 
the date of publication of the final rule promulgating the 
amendment--as reflected by the manufacturer's Web site or other 
product information. [Emphasis in text.]

    Agency Response: We do not agree that the term ``available for 
purchase'' means that the child restraint must be available from its 
manufacturer. The agency considers CRSs to be available for purchase if 
it can be purchased from any source. Consumers have available to them a 
multitude of ways of acquiring child restraints in today's marketplace 
and we believe that the appendix should reflect such real-world 
acquisition of the restraints, since consumers could reasonably acquire 
and use the restraint with the advanced air bag system. In addition, 
after consideration of the statements made in the November 19, 2003 
final rule that we would not use a CRS for compliance testing if it 
were ``unavailable or altered'' on the date of publication of the final 
rule adopting it into Appendix A, we have concluded that the statement 
has been overtaken by events in today's context. We cannot imagine a 
situation where a new CRS that has been added to the appendix will have 
undergone a significant design change between the time of the proposal 
and the final rule. CRSs adopted into the appendix are highly unlikely 
to be unavailable or altered on the date of publication of the final 
rule adopting them into the appendix since NHTSA works closely with CRS 
manufacturers to ensure that newly added CRSs are not slated to be 
unavailable or altered so close in time to the publication of the final 
rule. Furthermore, if a CRS differs so much on the day of publication 
of a rule from the CRS that the agency had proposed and intended to 
adopt, that situation should be addressed in a rulemaking proceeding 
that would remove the CRS from the appendix or reconsider the merits of 
its inclusion. For these reasons, we decline to take the narrow view of 
``available for purchase'' suggested by the Alliance.
    In the NPRM we acknowledged that we were aware that some of the 
proposed CRSs would likely change model numbers before the publication 
of this final rule. Therefore, for this final rule, we have verified 
the model numbers with the CRS manufacturers and the model numbers of 
some of the CRSs have been updated to reflect the latest information 
available from the CRS manufacturers.

c. Developing ``Standard'' Models of CRSs

    TRW recommended the agency consider working with CRS manufacturers 
to develop ``standard'' models of each of the CRSs in the appendix. The 
``standard'' CRS would be based on a typical model offered for sale by 
the CRS manufacturer, but would not be subject to change or 
obsolescence by the manufacturer without notification to the agency and 
would not be for sale to the public and would be sold only for the 
purpose of testing and development.
    Agency Response: We have considered a similar approach in the past, 
which we have called the surrogate approach, and have noted some 
concerns with it. In the November 2003 final rule (68 FR at 65189), we 
stated that surrogates--

do not attempt to represent dimensional outliers * * * they cannot 
ensure the robustness of an automatic suppression system under real 
world conditions * * * Additionally, without amending FMVSS No. 213 
to require restraints to be dimensionally similar to the surrogates, 
there is no assurance that the surrogates will continue to represent 
even the average dimensions of restraints on the market.

    We continue to have these concerns with surrogates. Also, updating 
the appendix serves the dual purposes of finding replacement CRSs for 
those that have become unavailable, and of ensuring that the CRSs 
listed are representative of those on the market. While developing 
``standard'' models would address the availability problems associated 
with the dynamic nature of the CRS industry, it does not address the 
identification of new trends or outliers or the representation of 
average CRSs on the market. Furthermore, such an effort would require a 
major commitment from the CRS manufacturers and there is no indication 
that they would be willing or able to pursue such an effort at this 
time.

d. Define ``Model'' in Child Restraint System Standard

    AORC and TRW suggested adopting a formal ``model'' designation 
system for child restraints in FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213) similar 
to FMVSS No. 209, S4.1(j), to better track any changes to child 
restraint models that might affect performance in a suppression or LRD 
test. FMVSS No. 209 requires that each seat belt assembly be 
permanently and legibly marked or labeled with, among other things, 
information on the ``model'' of the assembly. FMVSS No. 209 also states 
that a ``model'' shall consist of a single combination of

[[Page 66796]]

webbing having a specific type of fiber weave and construction, and 
hardware having a specific design, and that webbings of various colors 
may be included under the same model. The commenters stated that FMVSS 
No. 213 could be amended to define a ``child restraint model,'' in the 
following manner: ``A model shall consist of a single combination of 
shell, base, harness, and vehicle attachment hardware/provisions/
routing having a specific design. Webbing and seat upholstery of 
various colors may be included under the same model.''
    Agency Response: The suggestions raised by the commenters will be 
kept in mind when addressing future Appendix A rulemakings. We note 
that FMVSS No. 213, S5.5, already requires child restraints to be 
labeled with the model name or number. Normally, the CRS manufacturers, 
for their own tracking purposes, indicate with a stamp on the mold or 
some other type of visual indication when a mold change has been made.

e. Rear-Facing CRSs With High Profiles

    Safe Ride News believed that a low seat back height for rear-facing 
CRSs is an important factor for LRD testing and so, the commenter 
stated, it is important to include in Appendix A rear-facing CRSs with 
low profiles. According to the commenter, we should ensure that the 
appendix include restraints that can be used without a base because 
restraints with a base tended to have a higher profile.
    Agency Response: Seat back height was one of the parameters used by 
the agency in selecting CRSs for Appendix A. All the rear-facing CRSs 
in the revised Appendix A come with a base and can be used with or 
without the base for the purposes of compliance testing. Appendix A has 
rear-facing and convertible CRSs with seat back heights that range from 
12.75 to 27 in.\23\ \24\ The rear-facing CRSs we are adding to the 
appendix diversify the spectrum of seat back heights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The upper end of the spectrum (27 in) represents 
convertible CRSs, which have higher seat back heights than rear-
facing-only CRSs.
    \24\ The height measurement used for the rear-facing CRSs is the 
height with their base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that contrary to the commenter's belief, agency LRD testing 
on different car types has indicated that CRSs with high seat back 
heights can for some designs provide higher injury values than the low 
profile CRSs. Accordingly, we are keeping CRSs with high seat back 
heights in our test program.

IX. Specification of a Manufactured On or After Date for the Newly 
Added CRSs

    In Appendix A-1 we have incorporated the NPRM date, September 25, 
2007, as the ``manufactured on or after'' date for the newly added 
CRSs. This is to distinguish these CRSs from others that may have been 
manufactured prior to the September date and which may have had slight 
design differences. (The agency is taking this step only as a 
precaution; we do not know of any such differences between like-model 
CRSs manufactured before September 25, 2007 and those studied by the 
agency and discussed in the NPRM.) The CRSs that are unaffected by this 
rulemaking are maintaining the December 1, 1999 date.

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be 
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The costs and benefits 
of advanced air bags are discussed in the agency's Final Economic 
Assessment for the May 2000 final rule (Docket 7013). The cost and 
benefit analysis provided in that document would not be affected by 
this final rule, since this final rule only adjusts and updates the 
CRSs used in test procedures of that final rule. The minimal impacts of 
today's amendment do not warrant preparation of a regulatory 
evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. 
I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects 
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers, but 
the entities that qualify as small businesses will not be significantly 
affected by this rulemaking because they are already required to comply 
with the advanced air bag requirements. This final rule does not 
establish new requirements, but instead only adjusts and updates the 
CRSs used in test procedures of that final rule.

Executive Order 13132

    NHTSA has examined today's final 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 does not have federalism implications because this final 
rule does 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.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect 
of today's rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at 
least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act contains an express preemptive 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 that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, 
so consultation would be inappropriate.
    Second, in addition to the express preemption noted above, the 
Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on 
motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort 
law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a 
NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy 
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements 
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 
(2000). NHTSA has not discerned any potential State requirements that 
might conflict with the final rule, however, in part because such 
conflicts can arise in varied contexts. We cannot completely rule out 
the possibility that such a conflict may become apparent in the future 
through subsequent experience with standard. NHTSA may opine on such 
conflicts in the future, if warranted.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation 
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of 
the human environment.

[[Page 66797]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

    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. This final rule 
contains a collection of information because of the phase-in reporting 
requirements being established. There is no burden to the general 
public. We will be submitting a request for OMB clearance for the 
collection of information required under today's final rule.
    These requirements and our estimates of the burden to vehicle 
manufacturers are as follows:
    NHTSA estimates there are 21 manufacturers of passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 
3,856 kg (8,500 lb) or less.
    NHTSA estimates that the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden 
on each manufacturer resulting from the collection of information is 
one (1) hour.
    NHTSA estimates that the annual cost burden on each manufacturer, 
in U.S. dollars, on each manufacturer will be $35. No additional 
resources will be expended by vehicle manufacturers to gather annual 
production information because they already compile this data for their 
own use.
    The purpose of the reporting requirements will be to aid NHTSA in 
determining whether a manufacturer has complied with the requirements 
of FMVSS No. 208 during the phase-in of today's requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Public Law 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.'' There are no voluntary consensus standards 
that address the CRSs that should be included in Appendix A.

Executive Order 12988

    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 final 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 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). This final rule will 
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million 
annually.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to 
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as 
defined in E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any 
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse 
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that 
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is 
not subject to E.O. 13211.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require 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 at 
the address provided at the beginning of this document.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    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.

Privacy Act

    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

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

49 CFR Part 585

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as set 
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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


[[Page 66798]]


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

0
2. Section 571.208 is amended by adding S14.8, revising S19.2.1, 
S19.2.2(d), S20.1.1, the introductory text of S20.2.1.1, 
S20.2.1.6.1(e), S20.2.2.1, S20.2.3.1, S20.2.3.2(a), S20.4.2, S21.2.1, 
S22.1.1, S22.2.1.4(a), S22.2.1.6.1(f), S23.2.1, and S24.1.1.

0
3. Section 571.208 is amended by revising Appendix A, by adding 
Appendix A-1 after Appendix A, and by moving Figures A1 and A2 that are 
now at the end of Appendix A to follow Appendix A-1.

0
4. Section 571.208 is amended by revising the headings of Figures A1 
and A2 that are now placed after Appendix A-1.
    The amended and added text, appendices, and figures read as 
follows:


Sec.  571.208  Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *
    S14.8 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and 
before September 1, 2010. Vehicles manufactured on or after September 
1, 2009 and before September 1, 2010, shall comply with S14.8.1 through 
S14.8.4. At any time during the production year ending August 31, 2010, 
each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles by make, model 
and vehicle identification number that have been certified as complying 
with S19, S21, and S23 (in addition to the other requirements specified 
in this standard) when using the child restraint systems specified in 
Appendix A-1 of this standard. The manufacturer's designation of a 
vehicle as meeting the requirements when using the child restraint 
systems in Appendix A-1 of this standard is irrevocable.
    S14.8.1 Subject to S14.8.2, for vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2009, the number of vehicles certified as complying with 
S19, S21, and S23 when using the child restraint systems specified in 
Appendix A-1 of this standard shall be not less than 50 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
subject to S19, S21, and S23 of this standard manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2006 and before September 1, 2009; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production of vehicles subject to S19, S21, 
and S23 manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and before September 
1, 2010.
    S14.8.2 For the purpose of calculating average annual production of 
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured 
by each manufacturer under S14.8.1, a vehicle produced by more than one 
manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer as provided 
in S14.8.2(a) through (c), subject to S14.8.3.
    (a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the 
importer.
    (b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one 
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be 
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
    (c) A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S14.8.2(a) or (b).
    S14.8.3 For the purposes of calculating average annual production 
of vehicle for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles by each 
manufacturer under S14.8.1, each vehicle that is excluded from the 
requirement to test with child restraints listed in Appendix A or A-1 
of this standard is not counted.
    S14.8.4 Until September 1, 2011, vehicles manufactured by a final-
stage manufacturer or alterer could be certified as complying with S19, 
S21, and S23 when using the child restraint systems specified in 
Appendix A. Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 by 
these manufacturers must be certified as complying with S19, S21, and 
S23 when using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1.
* * * * *
    S19.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression 
feature for the passenger air bag which results in deactivation of the 
air bag during each of the static tests specified in S20.2 (using the 
49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI child dummy in any of the 
child restraints identified in sections B and C of Appendix A or A-1 of 
this standard, as appropriate and the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart K Newborn 
Infant dummy in any of the car beds identified in section A of Appendix 
A or A-1, as appropriate), and activation of the air bag system during 
each of the static tests specified in S20.3 (using the 49 CFR Part 572 
Subpart O 5th percentile adult female dummy).
    S19.2.2 * * *
    (d) Shall be located within the interior of the vehicle and forward 
of and above the design H-point of both the driver's and the right 
front passenger's seat in their forwardmost seating positions and shall 
not be located on or adjacent to a surface that can be used for 
temporary or permanent storage of objects that could obscure the 
telltale from either the driver's or right front passenger's view, or 
located where the telltale would be obscured from the driver's view if 
a rear-facing child restraint listed in Appendix A or A-1, as 
appropriate, is installed in the right front passenger's seat.
* * * * *
    S20.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a car bed, a rear facing child 
restraint, or a convertible child restraint may be conducted using any 
such restraint listed in sections A, B, and C, respectively, of 
Appendix A or A-1 of this standard, as appropriate. The car bed, rear 
facing child restraint, or convertible child restraint may be unused or 
have been previously used only for automatic suppression tests. If it 
has been used, there shall not be any visible damage prior to the test.
* * * * *
    S20.2.1.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child 
restraint specified in section B and section C of Appendix A or A-1 of 
this standard, as appropriate, installed in the front outboard 
passenger vehicle seat in the following orientations:
    (a) * * *
    (b) * * *
* * * * *
    S20.2.1.6.1 * * *
    (e) Use the loading device equipped with the loading foot shown in 
Figure A1 and position it as shown in Figure A2 of Appendix A and 
Appendix A-1 of this section. The 153 degree angle of the 
loading device illustrated in Figure A2 is determined with an initial 
preload of 7525N.
* * * * *
    S20.2.2.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child 
restraint specified in section B and section C of Appendix A or A-1 of 
this standard, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    S20.2.3.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any car bed 
specified in section A of Appendix A or A-1 of this standard, as 
appropriate.
* * * * *
    S20.2.3.2 * * *
    (a) Install the car bed following, to the extent possible, the car 
bed manufacturer's directions regarding proper installation of the car 
bed. If the seat belt cannot be secured around the car bed, move the 
seat rearward to the

[[Page 66799]]

next detent that allows the belt to be secured around the car bed, or 
if the seat is a power seat, using only the control that primarily 
moves the seat fore and aft, move the seat rearward the minimum 
distance necessary for the seat belt to be secured around the car bed.
* * * * *
    S20.4.2 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child restraint 
specified in section B and section C of Appendix A or A-1 of this 
standard, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    S21.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression 
feature for the passenger air bag which results in deactivation of the 
air bag during each of the static tests specified in S22.2 (using the 
49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and, as applicable, 
any child restraint specified in section C and section D of Appendix A 
or A-1 of this standard, as appropriate), and activation of the air bag 
system during each of the static tests specified in S22.3 (using the 49 
CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female dummy).
* * * * *
    S22.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a forward facing child 
restraint, including a booster seat where applicable, may be conducted 
using any such restraint listed in section C and section D of Appendix 
A or A-1 of this standard, as appropriate. The child restraint may be 
unused or have been previously used only for automatic suppression 
tests. If it has been used, there shall not be any visible damage prior 
to the test. Booster seats are to be used in the manner appropriate for 
a 3-year-old child of the same height and weight as the 3-year-old 
child dummy.
* * * * *
    S22.2.1.4 * * *
    (a) Using the vehicle safety belts as specified in S22.2.1.5 with 
section C and section D child restraints of Appendix A or A-1, as 
appropriate, of this section designed to be secured to the vehicle seat 
even when empty; and
* * * * *
    S22.2.1.6.1 * * *
    (f) Use the loading device equipped with the loading foot shown in 
Figure A1 and position it as shown in Figure A2 of Appendix A and 
Appendix A-1 of this standard. The 153 degree angle of the 
loading device is determined with an initial preload of 7525 N.
* * * * *
    S23.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression 
feature for the passenger frontal air bag system which results in 
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests specified 
in S24.2 (using the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy in 
any of the child restraints specified in section D of Appendix A or A-1 
of this standard, as appropriate), and activation of the air bag system 
during each of the static tests specified in S24.3 (using the 49 CFR 
Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female dummy).
* * * * *
    S24.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a booster seat may be conducted 
using any such restraint listed in section D of Appendix A or A-1 of 
this standard, as appropriate. The booster seat may be unused or have 
been previously used only for automatic suppression tests. If it has 
been used, there shall not be any visible damage prior to the test. 
Booster seats are to be used in the manner appropriate for a 6-year-old 
child of the same height and weight as the 6-year-old child dummy.
* * * * *

APPENDIX A TO Sec.  571.208--SELECTION OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

    This Appendix A applies to vehicles manufactured before September 
1, 2009 and to not more than 50 percent of a manufacturer's vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and before September 1, 
2010, as specified in S14.8 of this standard. This appendix does not 
apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010.
    A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after December 1, 
1999, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been certified as 
being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19:

            Subpart A--Car Bed Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Dream Ride 02-719.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems 
specified in the table below, manufactured on or after December 1, 
1999, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
to test the suppression or low risk deployment (LRD) system of a 
vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 
571.208 S19. When the restraint system comes equipped with a removable 
base, the test may be run either with the base attached or without the 
base.

          Subpart B--Rear-Facing Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Handle with Care 191.
Century Assura 4553.
Century Smart Fit 4543.
Cosco Arriva 02727.
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212.
Evenflo First Choice 204.
Graco Infant 8457.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems, and 
forward-facing child restraint systems that also convert to rear-
facing, manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, may be used by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to test the suppression 
or LRD system of a vehicle that has been certified as being in 
compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19, or S21. (Note: Any child restraint 
listed in this subpart that does not have manufacturer instructions for 
using it in a rear-facing position is excluded from use in testing in a 
belted rear-facing configuration under S20.2.1.1(a) and S20.4.2):

Subpart C--Forward-Facing and Convertible Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century Encore 4612.
Cosco Olympian 02803.
Britax Roundabout 161.
Century STE 1000 4416.
Cosco Touriva 02519.
Evenflo Horizon V 425.
Evenflo Medallion 254.
Safety 1st Comfort Ride 22-400.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems and 
belt-positioning seats, manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, may 
be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as test 
devices to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been 
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S21 or S23:

Subpart D--Forward-Facing Child Restraints and Belt Positioning Seats of
                               Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roadster 9004.
Century Next Step 4920.
Cosco High Back Booster 02-442.
Evenflo Right Fit 245.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX A-1 TO Sec.  571.208--SELECTION OF CHILD SYSTEMS RESTRAINT

    This Appendix A-1 applies to not less than 50 percent of a 
manufacturer's vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and 
before September 1, 2010, as specified in S14.8

[[Page 66800]]

of this standard. This appendix applies to all vehicles manufactured on 
or after September 1, 2010.
    A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after the date listed, 
may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to 
test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been certified as 
being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19:

           Subpart A--Car Bed Child Restraints of Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF..  September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems 
specified in the table below, manufactured on or after the date listed, 
may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to 
test the suppression or low risk deployment (LRD) system of a vehicle 
that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19. 
When the restraint system comes equipped with a removable base, the 
test may be run either with the base attached or without the base.

         Subpart B--Rear-Facing Child Restraints of Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century Smart Fit 4543............  December 1, 1999.
Cosco Arriva 22-013 PAW and base    September 25, 2007.
 22-999 WHO.
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212  December 1, 1999.
Graco Infant 8457.................  December 1, 1999.
Graco Snugride....................  September 25, 2007.
Peg Perego Primo Viaggio SIP        September 25, 2007.
 IMUN00US.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems, and 
forward-facing child restraint systems that also convert to rear-
facing, manufactured on or after the date listed, may be used by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to test the suppression 
or LRD system of a vehicle that has been certified as being in 
compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19, or S21. (Note: Any child restraint 
listed in this subpart that does not have manufacturer instructions for 
using it in a rear-facing position is excluded from use in testing in a 
belted rear-facing configuration under S20.2.1.1(a) and S20.4.2):

Subpart C--Forward-Facing and Convertible Child Restraints of 
Appendix A-1

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roundabout E9L02xx.........  September 25, 2007.
Graco ComfortSport................  September 25, 2007.
Cosco Touriva 02519...............  December 1, 1999.
Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx.........  September 25, 2007.
Evenflo Medallion 254.............  December 1, 1999.
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back       September 25, 2007.
 Booster 22-262.
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx.......  September 25, 2007.
Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2.....  September 25, 2007.
Graco Platinum Cargo..............  September 25, 2007.
Cosco High Back Booster 22-209....  September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems and 
belt-positioning seats, manufactured on or after the date listed, may 
be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as test 
devices to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been 
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S21 or S23:

Subpart D--Forward-Facing Child Restraints and Belt Positioning 
Seats of Appendix A-1

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roadster 9004..............  December 1, 1999
Graco Platinum Cargo..............  September 25, 2007
Cosco High Back Booster 22-209....  September 25, 2007
Evenflo Right Fit 245.............  December 1, 1999
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx.......  September 25, 2007
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back       September 25, 2007
 Booster 22-262.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 66801]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO08.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO08.010


0
3. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. Part 585 is amended by revising Subpart D to read as follows:

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

* * * * *
Subpart D--Appendix A-1 of FMVSS No. 208 Phase-in Reporting 
Requirements
585.31 Scope
585.32 Purpose
585.33 Applicability
585.34 Definitions
585.35 Response to inquiries
585.36 Reporting requirements
585.37 Records
* * * * *


Sec.  585.31  Scope.

    This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger 
cars, and of trucks, buses and multipurpose

[[Page 66802]]

passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,856 
kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds (lb)) or less, to submit a report, and 
maintain records related to the report, concerning the number of such 
vehicles that are certified as complying with S19, S21, and S23 of 
FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) when using the child restraint systems 
specified in Appendix A-1 of this standard.


Sec.  585.32  Purpose.

    The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 208 
when using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1 of 
that standard.


Sec.  585.33  Applicability.

    This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, and of 
trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,856 
kg (8,500 lb) or less.


Sec.  585.34  Definitions.

    (a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their 
statutory meaning.
    (b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as defined in 
Sec.  571.3 of this chapter.
    (c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
    (d) Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three 
or fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the 
United States during a production year.


Sec.  585.35  Response to inquiries.

    At any time during the production year ending August 31, 2010, each 
manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, 
model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as 
complying with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when using the 
child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1 of that standard. The 
manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle is 
irrevocable.


Sec.  585.36  Reporting Requirements.

    (a) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end 
of the production year ending August 31, 2010, each manufacturer shall 
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
concerning its compliance with requirements of Standard No. 208 when 
using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1 of that 
standard for its vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall 
provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section and 
in section 585.2 of this part.
    (b) Phase-in report content--
    (1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each manufacturer shall 
provide the number of vehicles manufactured in the current production 
year, or, at the manufacturer's option, in each of the three previous 
production years. A new manufacturer that is, for the first time, 
manufacturing passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles 
or buses for sale in the United States must report the number of 
passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles or buses 
manufactured during the current production year.
    (2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall 
report on the number of vehicles that meet the requirements of Standard 
No. 208 when using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-
1 of that standard.


Sec.  585.37  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is 
reported under Sec.  585.36 until December 31, 2013.

    Issued on: October 30, 2008.
David Kelly,
Acting Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-26812 Filed 11-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
