[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 25, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54402-54411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18716]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28710]
RIN 2127-AK02


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to update 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 proposed today would replace some CRSs 
listed in Appendix A with CRSs that are more representative of the CRS 
fleet currently on the market. The agency proposes to delete six 
existing CRSs and to add five new CRSs. Since the appendix has not been 
revised since 2003, NHTSA also seeks comment on whether seven other 
CRSs in the appendix should be replaced with CRSs with essentially the 
same features but more recently produced.

DATES: You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket 
Management receives them not later than October 25, 2007. If adopted, 
most of the amendments would be effective for the next model year 
introduced one year after the publication of a final rule. Optional 
early compliance would be permitted. See discussion under ``Proposed 
Compliance Dates'' section in the preamble of this NPRM.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket ID Number 
28710] by any of the following methods:
    If filing comments by September 27, 2007, please use:
     Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the Department of Transportation Docket 
Management System electronic docket site. No electronic submissions 
will be accepted between September 28, 2007, and October 1, 2007.
    If filing comments on or after October 1, 2007, use:

[[Page 54403]]

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://www.dms.dot.gov or http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading 
below.
    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 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov until September 27, 2007, 
or the street address listed above. The DOT docket may be offline at 
times between September 28 through September 30 to migrate to the 
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). On October 1, 2007, the 
Internet access to the docket will be at http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carla Cuentas, Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division (telephone 202-
366-4583, fax 202-493-2739). For legal issues, contact Ms. 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. In Deciding To Update Appendix A
    a. Guiding Factors
    b. Child Restraint Data
    c. Additional Considerations
    1. Seat Back Height
    2. Handles and Sunshields
    3. Non-LATCH Child Restraints
III. Proposed Changes
    a. Deletions
    1. Deletion of the Britax Handle With Care 191 From Subpart B
    2. Deletion of the Century Assura 4553 From Subpart B
    3. Deletion of the Century (Graco) Encore 4612 From Subpart C
    4. Deletion of the Cosco Olympian 02-803 and the Safety First 
Comfort Ride 22-400 From Subpart C
    5. Deletion of the Britax Expressway ISOFIX From Subpart C
    b. Additions
    1. Addition of the Graco Snugride 8643 to Subpart B
    2. Addition of the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio IMCC00US to 
Subpart B
    3. Addition of the Cosco Summit Deluxe 22-260 to 
Subpart C
    4. Addition of the Graco SafeSeat (Step 2) 8B02 to 
Subpart C
    5. Addition of the Evenflo Generations 352 to Subpart C
    c. Updating Other CRSs in Appendix A
IV. Proposed Compliance Dates
V. Clarity of the Tables in Appendix A
VI. Public Participation
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant 
crash protection'' (49 CFR 571.208), requires light passenger vehicles 
to be equipped with safety 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 
future air bags be designed to create less risk of serious air bag-
induced injuries than current air bags 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 child restraint system 
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To minimize the risk to children, manufacturers choosing to rely on 
an air bag suppression system 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). 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. The addition of these 
``LATCH-equipped'' CRSs to Appendix A was meant to keep the appendix 
up-to-date in reflecting current CRS designs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
in vehicles pursuant to FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage 
Systems (49 CFR 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 child restraint 
system 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.
    \3\ The compliance date for the provision specifying testing 
with LATCH-equipped CRSs is September 1, 2008. Earlier dates were 
delayed (69 FR 51598, Docket 18905; 71 FR 51129, Docket 21244) 
because test procedures were not in place in FMVSS No. 208 to 
install LATCH-equipped CRSs in a repeatable manner until this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRSs in Appendix A

    Appendix A is made up of four (4) subparts, subparts A through D.
     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

[[Page 54404]]

suppression system or the low risk deployment 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 \4\ CRSs that can be used by the agency to test the 
suppression system or the low risk deployment 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
    There are one (1) car bed, seven (7) rear-facing child restraint 
systems, nine (9) forward-facing toddler and forward-facing convertible 
CRSs \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Two of these nine forward-facing toddler and forward-facing 
convertible CRSs are effective on September 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. In Deciding To Update Appendix A

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.) \6\ In considering whether 
a particular restraint should be in Appendix A, the agency considers 
whether the restraint--

    \6\ We also stated 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--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.

    NHTSA evaluated data, discussed in the next section, and undertook 
a systematic evaluation of 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 \7\ 
and/or footprints \8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.
    \8\ 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 today's 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 encourages CRS manufacturers to produce child restraints with 
features that make it 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 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 data were used to 
determine whether any changes to the appendix were warranted.

c. Additional Considerations

    The agency also considered the following factors in considering 
changes to Appendix A. NHTSA is interested in comments on the agency's 
deliberations.
1. Seat Back Height
    Automatic air bag suppression systems suppress the air bag when a 
child or a child in a CRS is placed on the seat, and enable the air 
bag's deployment if an adult occupies the seat. The threshold for 
enabling the air bag's deployment is dependent on the design and 
calibration of the suppression system used. The agency developed 
Appendix A to include CRSs with a gamut of features that would robustly 
assess vehicle suppression technologies.
    With LRD systems for infants already being used in some vehicles, 
the agency sought to include, in Subpart B of Appendix A, rear-facing 
child restraints of varying seat back heights. It seemed especially 
prudent to have CRSs with low seat back heights. For rear-facing CRSs 
with relatively low seat back heights, an air bag mounted on the top of 
the instrument panel may not encounter any reaction surface 
(resistance) from the CRS seat back, so the air bag could be allowed to 
fully pressurize. In the real world, the deploying air bag--whose 
energy was not lowered because it encountered a CRS with the low seat 
back--may interact in a fully energized state with the child's head as 
the bag comes over the top of the CRS seat back. NHTSA sought to ensure 
that the CRSs in Subpart B would ensure that children would not be 
subjected to unreasonable safety risks from LRD systems. We included in 
Appendix A rear-facing and convertible CRSs with seat back heights that 
range from 12.75 to 27 in.9 10 The rear-facing CRSs we are 
proposing to add to the appendix diversify the spectrum of seat back 
heights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The upper end of the spectrum (27 in) represents convertible 
CRSs, which have higher seat back heights than rear-facing-only 
CRSs.
    \10\ The height measurement used for the rear-facing CRSs is the 
height with their base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Handles and Sunshields
    Features such as handles and sunshields of a rear-facing CRS may 
complicate and challenge the sensing operation of advanced air bag 
systems. To ensure that advanced air bags perform well with all types 
of rear-facing CRSs, we believe that the systems should be tested with 
rear-facing CRSs that have handles and sunshields. All

[[Page 54405]]

rear-facing CRSs currently listed in the appendix have handles, and 
five (5) of the seven (7) rear-facing CRSs in the appendix have 
sunshields. The two rear-facing seats we are proposing to add to the 
appendix both have handles and sunshields. (We intend to adjust the 
handles and sunshields to the positions specified in the standard to 
ensure the robustness of the advanced air bag system.)
3. Non-LATCH Child Restraints
    Today's NPRM would replace some of the older non-LATCH CRSs in 
Appendix A with new LATCH-equipped CRSs. At the time of the November 
19, 2003 final rule, the agency decided against replacing all the 
restraints with new LATCH restraints because it was thought at the time 
that such an amendment would have been a drastic change and would fail 
to account for the non-LATCH seats that were still being widely used. 
For today's NPRM, we did not find overriding reasons for retaining the 
non-LATCH CRSs we are proposing to delete in this NPRM. When the LATCH 
requirement became effective in 2002 for child restraints, it does not 
appear that CRS manufacturers changed CRS structures or designs. 
Accordingly, when tested in a condition where the LATCH restraints are 
not attached to the vehicle, both suppression and LRD systems would 
react to LATCH and non-LATCH CRSs similarly.

III. Proposed Changes

    After considering the factors for decision-making discussed in the 
previous section of this preamble, we made tentative decisions about 
which CRSs should be replaced in Appendix A and which should remain. 
The following sections will discuss our proposed deletions and 
additions, along with corresponding rationale for these proposals.\11\ 
Some CRSs undergo annual cosmetic changes that result in different 
model numbers for the new version. We are aware of one CRS that we are 
proposing to add that will likely change model numbers before the 
publication of a final rule. Therefore, the model numbers of CRSs in 
this NPRM will be reviewed and updated to reflect the latest 
information available from CRS manufacturers prior to publication of a 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 
believed 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 proposes to delete six (6) existing CRSs and to add five 
(5) new CRSs. Below is Table 1 summarizing the proposed changes to the 
appendix.

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

a. Deletions

    Our proposed deletions were based generally on which CRSs 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 eliminated a CRS that offered a unique characteristic, we 
made an attempt to replace it with a similar CRS.
1. Deletion of the Britax Handle With Care 191 From Subpart B
    The Britax Handle with Care 191 was one of the original CRSs listed 
in the appendix. The Handle with Care 191 is a rear-facing infant 
restraint seat with a five-point harness and no base. Because it is not 
LATCH-compatible, Britax discontinued this CRS on September 1, 2002 
with the introduction of LATCH systems. Of all the rear-facing CRSs in 
Appendix A, it was the lightest (7.9 lb) and the CRS with the lowest 
production total. Some consumer Web sites report that few consumers 
purchased this CRS due to it not having a base and its high cost.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ http://www.windsorpeak.com/babybargains/bonus10.html and 
http://www.epinions.com/kifm-review-79DA-ACFDDA7-39C15E10-prod1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering these findings, we tentatively conclude that this 
CRS is not representative of today's CRS fleet, nor does it offer any 
unique characteristics that are not already adequately represented in 
other seats remaining in or being added to the appendix (it is not an 
outlier). Accordingly, we propose its deletion from Appendix A.
2. Deletion of the Century Assura 4553 From Subpart B
    The Century Assura 4553 rear-facing CRS is representative of CRSs 
in today's market. However, there are CRSs on the appendix with similar 
characteristics which are more available than this CRS. This CRS was 
discontinued in 2002 and relatively few were ever produced. It became 
apparent during the collection of data for the CRSs currently in the 
appendix that the Century Assura was the same CRS as the Century Smart 
Fit minus the base. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that this CRS 
should be deleted from Appendix A.

[[Page 54406]]

3. Deletion of the Century (Graco) Encore 4612 From Subpart C
    Graco discontinued this convertible CRS in 2001. Very few of these 
units were ever produced relative to other convertible CRSs. This CRS 
offers no unique dimensional or weight (mass) characteristics nor does 
it have a unique footprint when compared to other CRSs in the appendix. 
Therefore, we propose deleting this CRS from Subpart C of the appendix.
4. Deletion of the Cosco Olympian 02-803 and the Safety First Comfort 
Ride 22-400 From Subpart C
    Each of the Cosco Olympian 02-803 and the Safety First Comfort Ride 
22-400 is a convertible CRS with a 5-point harness. It became apparent 
during the collection of data for the CRSs currently in the appendix 
that the Cosco Touriva 02-519, Cosco Olympian 02-803, and Safety 1st 
Comfort Ride 22-400 were the same CRS with minor cosmetic changes. 
After confirming this with Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG), the manufacturer 
of the restraints, it was determined that these three CRSs came from 
the same manufacturing shell and were just cosmetically altered. To 
eliminate the redundancy in Appendix A testing, we propose deleting 
from the appendix the two CRSs with the lowest production totals, which 
would be the Cosco Olympian and the Safety 1st Comfort Ride.
5. Deletion of the Britax Expressway ISOFIX From Subpart C
    Although located in Subpart C of Appendix A, the Britax Expressway 
ISOFIX is a forward-facing only CRS and not a convertible. This child 
restraint was one of the two LATCH-equipped CRSs added by the November 
19, 2003, FMVSS No. 208 final rule. On March 20, 2006, the Alliance 
petitioned NHTSA to remove the Britax Expressway CRS from Appendix A, 
arguing that the CRS is no longer available on the market, few were 
sold, and because its inclusion is inconsistent with the principles and 
criteria that the agency announced that it would use to select CRSs for 
Appendix A.\13\ NHTSA has denied the Alliance's petition (NHTSA Docket 
28707), stating that NHTSA would rather take a comprehensive evaluation 
of the CRSs in Appendix A in deciding whether the Britax Expressway 
ISOFIX should be included in the appendix, rather than focus solely on 
the one CRS alone. Today's NPRM is a result of the agency's 
comprehensive evaluation of Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Alliance also stated that there is ambiguity relating 
to this CRS because when it was added to the appendix there were 
discrepancies in the final regulatory text. First, the agency placed 
this CRS in Section C even though it is not a convertible CRS. In 
the final rule dated August 20, 2004 (69 FR 51602) we stated that, 
``Consistent with the goal of reflecting real world misuse, we will 
test the Britax ISOFIX Expressway in both directions.'' Second, when 
it was added to the appendix, this CRS was listed as the ``Britax 
Expressway ISOFIX,'' yet in the August 20, 2004 final rule, when we 
amended Subpart C and Subpart D to describe more accurately the CRSs 
that are in those subparts, we listed this CRS as the ``Britax 
Expressway.'' This caused confusion because in the preamble of the 
2004 final rule, it was still referred to as the ``Britax Expressway 
ISOFIX,'' and NHTSA never made a technical correction that explained 
that we inadvertently dropped the ISOFIX designation in the 2004 
final rule regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After analyzing the data collected on the Britax Expressway ISOFIX, 
we determined that there are several factors that argue that the CRS 
should be maintained in the appendix. First, with respect to mass and 
dimensions, this CRS could be considered an outlier and thus a 
potential challenge to suppression systems. It is the heaviest forward-
facing CRS listed in the appendix (18.6 lb with the base). It also has 
a wide flat base that gives it a large footprint. It has the highest 
base outer width measurement of the 9 forward-facing CRSs listed (13 
in). Finally, it has a unique rigid LATCH design, i.e., it uses rigid, 
fixed metal components rather than a flexible strap to attach the CRS 
to the vehicle's LATCH lower anchors.
    At the same time, however, there are factors that have resulted in 
our tentative decision to remove this CRS from the appendix. In terms 
of sales, this CRS was never a high sales volume model. The Alliance's 
March 2006 petition states that only several hundred units were 
imported into the U.S., the majority of which were used for testing and 
evaluation purposes, not for retail sale. Furthermore, this CRS is no 
longer available for distribution. The agency has also tentatively 
determined that it would be acceptable to remove the Britax Expressway 
ISOFIX from the appendix because, at its extremely low sales volume, 
the CRS is not reasonably represented on the road today. Even as a 
dimensional and weight outlier, its inclusion is not warranted at such 
an insignificant level of field presence. For the reasons given above, 
we propose deleting the Britax Expressway ISOFIX from Appendix A. 
Furthermore, in this NPRM, the agency is proposing to add a CRS of 
similarly heavy weight and another that has a similarly large footprint 
to the appendix. Thus, these outlier characteristics are being 
maintained in the appendix with seats that are much more widely 
available.

b. Additions

    We sought to include more LATCH-equipped CRSs in the appendix, 
while recognizing that testing and compliance burdens are impacted each 
time a CRS in the appendix is changed. Including more LATCH CRSs is 
believed to be necessary since we had not modified the appendix since 
November 2003 and only two CRSs listed in the appendix have LATCH 
attachments, while all CRSs manufactured after September 1, 2002 have 
been required to have LATCH attachments.
1. Addition of the Graco Snugride 8643 to Subpart B
    The Graco Snugride is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a detachable 
base, flexible LATCH attachments and a 5-point safety harness. This CRS 
is extremely popular and is one of the highest produced rear-facing 
CRSs in the U.S. It is also among the lightest rear-facing CRSs in the 
2006 EOU program. The weight of the Snugride is 11.2 lb with its base 
(compared to an average weight of 12.1 lb for rear-facing CRSs in the 
2006 EOU program) and 6.1 lb without its base (compared to the average 
weight of 7.7 lb for similar seats in the 2006 EOU program). We 
tentatively conclude that the Graco Snugride would be a good 
replacement for the Britax Handle with Care in terms of its light 
weight.
    Its height and width dimensions make the Snugride representative of 
the average rear-facing CRS in today's market. The average height and 
average outer base width dimensions for the rear-facing CRSs, with 
bases, in the 2006 EOU program are 17.9 in and 10.7 in, respectively. 
The height and outer base width dimensions of the Graco Snugride with 
its base are 16 in and 10.5 in, respectively. Because the Snugride 
appears to be representative of today's CRS fleet, we propose adding it 
to Subpart B of Appendix A.
2. Addition of the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio IMCC00US to 
Subpart B
    The Peg Perego Primo Viaggio is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a 
detachable base, flexible LATCH attachments and a 5-point safety 
harness. It weighs 18.8 lb with its base and 11.2 lb without its base, 
making it heavier than any of the rear-facing CRSs currently listed in 
the appendix \14\ and is significantly heavier than the average rear-
facing CRSs in the 2006 EOU program (12.1 lb with the base and 7.7

[[Page 54407]]

lb without the base). Its base depth and width dimensions (19 in and 
15.5 in, respectively) are significantly larger than the average base 
depth and width of the rear-facing CRSs in the 2006 EOU program (12.8 
in and 11.7 in, respectively). For testing purposes, this CRS is also 
noteworthy because of the flatness of its footprint (see Technical 
Assessment, in docket for this NPRM). Its footprint appears unique 
among rear-facing CRSs in the EOU data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The heaviest CRS currently in the appendix is the Britax 
Expressway ISOFIX that weighs 18.6 lb. The heaviest rear-facing CRS 
in the appendix is the Century SmartFit that weighs 10.6 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our analysis of the data, we believe that this CRS is 
somewhat of an outlier in terms of its dimensions and by having a 
unique footprint. Therefore, we propose adding this restraint to 
Subpart B of Appendix A.
3. Addition of the Cosco Summit Deluxe 22-260 to Subpart C
    The Cosco Summit Deluxe is a forward-facing-only combination CRS 
with flexible LATCH attachments and a 5-point safety harness. It weighs 
15.2 lb, which is just slightly over the 14 lb average weight of the 
forward-facing CRSs in the 2006 EOU program. It is 28.5 in tall, making 
it taller than any of the forward-facing CRSs currently in the 
appendix, the tallest of which is the Evenflo Horizon V at 27 in. The 
Cosco Summit Deluxe also has a large base with a width of 19.5 in and a 
depth of 18 in. This base width and depth measurements are 
significantly wider and deeper than the average base width and depth 
for the forward-facing CRSs in the 2006 EOU program (12.8 in and 14.9 
in, respectively). After consideration of these factors, we tentatively 
conclude that this CRS would be a good replacement for the Britax 
Expressway ISOFIX in terms of its wide base and height. Therefore, we 
propose including the Cosco Summit Deluxe in Subpart C of Appendix A.
4. Addition of the Graco SafeSeat (Step 2) 8B02 to Subpart C
    The Graco SafeSeat (Step 2) is a forward-facing only CRS with 
flexible LATCH attachments and a 5-point safety harness. It is among 
the heavier forward-facing CRSs on the market. It weighs 21 lb (the 
average weight of the forward-facing CRSs in the 2006 EOU program is 14 
lb). Its height, base width, and base depth measurements are 27.5 in, 
15.5 in, and 15 in respectively, compared to the average height, base 
width, and base depth of 26 in, 12.8 in, and 14.9 in, respectively, for 
the forward-facing CRSs in the 2006 EOU program. As shown in the 
technical assessment accompanying this NPRM, the SafeSeat (Step 2) has 
a unique base configuration because of its relative flatness, and thus 
has a unique footprint. There are no forward-facing CRSs currently 
listed on the appendix with a similar footprint, and there would be no 
remaining forward-facing-only CRSs if the Britax Expressway ISOFIX were 
to be removed from the appendix. Based on our analysis, we tentatively 
conclude that this CRS is somewhat of an outlier because of its weight 
and unique footprint. We believe that if the Britax Expressway ISOFIX 
were deleted, a CRS with a similar or heavier weight should be added, 
and that this CRS appears to meet that need. Therefore, we propose 
adding the Graco SafeSeat (Step 2) to Subpart C of Appendix A.
5. Addition of the Evenflo Generations 352 to Subpart C
    The Evenflo Generations is a convertible CRS, with flexible LATCH 
attachments, and a 5-point safety harness. It is among the lighter 
forward-facing CRSs in today's market. It weighs 11.7 lb (the average 
weight of the forward-facing CRSs in the 2006 EOU program is 14 lb). 
Its height (25 in), base width (10.75 in), and base depth (26 in) 
appear to be representative of the average height (26 in), base width 
(12.8 in), and base depth (14.9 in) of the forward-facing CRSs in the 
2006 EOU program. Its footprint appears to be unique, as shown in the 
docketed technical assessment. Also, the footprint in the forward-
facing mode is different than the footprint in the rear-facing mode. 
Because this CRS appears to be an outlier due to its low weight and 
unique footprint, we propose adding the Evenflo Generations to Section 
C of Appendix A.

c. Updating Other CRSs in Appendix A

    Comments are requested on changing other CRSs in Appendix A. 
Mindful of compliance burdens and the agency's statement in the 
September 2003 final rule that NHTSA anticipates changing not more than 
10-20 percent of the CRSs in Appendix A in periodic updates of the 
appendix, these changes are of secondary importance to us compared to 
the proposed changes of the previous sections, and primarily would 
simply update the older CRSs in the appendix with newer model CRSs that 
have the same main physical features as the older restraints. However, 
it has been nearly 4 years since Appendix A was changed, and with many 
of the CRSs in the appendix no longer for sale and hard to find, NHTSA 
would like to take this opportunity to ask for comments on the possible 
updates to the CRSs as listed in the table below (see technical 
assessment for data and pictures) and the compliance burdens associated 
with making these additional changes to Appendix A.
    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 CRS could be considered an equivalent replacement for the 
Appendix A CRS. With one exception discussed below related to the Cosco 
Dream Ride car bed, manufacturers were able to suggest a possible 
replacement. (The technical assessment lists the Appendix A replacement 
CRSs identified by the CRS manufacturers.) With this information on 
possible replacement CRSs for Appendix A, 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 ones we first 
replace with newer-model CRSs. Those CRSs which we are considering 
replacing with the newer-model restraints are set forth below in Table 
2 for comment. If the comments on this issue indicate that making these 
updates in this rulemaking is warranted, we could include these 
additional changes to Appendix A in the final rule following today's 
NPRM.

      Table 2.--CRSs That Could Be Replaced With Similar, More Recently-Produced Restraints, and What Those
                                             Replacements Should Be
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Appendix A subpart              CRS in  Appendix A          Type of CRS              Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................................  Cosco Dream Ride.......  Car bed................  Angel Guard Angel Ride
                                                                                          AA2403FOF.
B....................................  Cosco Arriva 02-727....  Rear-facing............  Cosco Arriva 22-013.
C....................................  Britax Roundabout......  Convertible............  Britax Roundabout
                                                                                          E9L02.
C....................................  Century Encore.........  Convertible............  Graco ComfortSport.

[[Page 54408]]

 
C....................................  Evenflo Horizon V......  Convertible............  Evenflo Tribute 5
                                                                                          Deluxe 379.
D....................................  Century Next Step......  Combination............  Graco Cherished Cargo.
D....................................  Cosco High Back Booster  Booster................  Cosco Hi Back Booster
                                                                                          22-209.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cosco Dream Ride Car Bed (Subpart A)
    Subpart A of the appendix lists a car bed, the Cosco Dream Ride, 
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 additional car bed that is 
being manufactured. We are proposing this latter one as our replacement 
choice because it is being made available to the general public. NHTSA 
seeks comments on replacing the Cosco Dream Ride with the Angel Guard 
Angel Ride. Measurements and pictures of this CRS are set forth in the 
technical assessment.

IV. Proposed Compliance Dates

    Consistent with statements NHTSA made in the November 19, 2003 
FMVSS No. 208 final rule regarding lead time (68 FR at 65188), the 
agency proposes that (except as noted below for the Britax Expressway 
ISOFIX) 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 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.
    Regarding the Britax Expressway ISOFIX, we have tentatively 
determined this CRS to be exceptionally uncommon in the U.S. and very 
difficult to obtain. For those reasons, we propose that this CRS be 
removed from Appendix A effective on the date of publication of the 
final rule.
    This NPRM also proposes to permit manufacturers the option of early 
compliance with the amended list, i.e., they 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 proposes 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); they may not 
certify with some, but not all of the newly-added restraints. The 
reason for this limitation would be to maintain the integrity of the 
appendix. The Appendix A CRSs are each a part of a comprehensive set. 
Each CRS in the appendix was selected for a reason, meeting a need not 
met by other CRSs in the appendix. Picking and choosing among the CRSs 
could leave a need unmet and an important performance aspect of an 
advanced air bag system unexplored.

V. Clarity of the Tables in Appendix A

    This NPRM would reformat the tables of Appendix A to improve the 
clarity and simplicity of the tables. NHTSA believes that the current 
format of the tables might not be optimal in reflecting future and more 
frequent updates to the Appendix. Comments are requested on how the 
plain meaning of the tables could be further improved.

VI. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.) 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically. If you are 
submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that 
the documents submitted be scanned using Optical Character Recognition 
(OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain 
portions of your submissions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's 
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket

[[Page 54409]]

Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a 
comment containing information claimed to be confidential business 
information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the 
information specified in our confidential business information 
regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

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

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on 
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following 
steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``Simple Search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-2007-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``Search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

VII. 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 NPRM, since this NPRM 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 proposed rule would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NPRM would affect 
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers, but 
the entities that qualify as small businesses would 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 NPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132 
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the rulemaking would not have federalism implications because a final 
rule, if issued, would not have ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.''
    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.
    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 outlined such potential State requirements in 
today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise 
in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may 
become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and 
test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if 
warranted. See id. at 883-86.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by 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 NPRM would not establish any new information 
collection requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments.'' There

[[Page 54410]]

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 proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further 
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they 
may file suit in court.

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 NPRM would 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 include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

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 19477-19478).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

    2. Section 571.208 is amended by revising items A through D of 
Appendix A. Figures A1 and A2 at the end of Appendix A are not revised.
    The revised text reads as follows:


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

* * * * *

Appendix A to Sec.  571.208--Selection of Child Restraint Systems

    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 is 
manufactured on or after the effective date and prior to the 
termination date specified in the table below and that has been 
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Termination
                                         Effective date        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Dream Ride 02-719...............       1/17/2002                *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Until further notice, any vehicle manufactured after the effective
  date specified is still subject to testing with this child restraint
  system.

    B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems, 
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 is 
manufactured on or after the effective date and prior to the 
termination date specified in the table below and 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.

[[Page 54411]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Termination
                                         Effective date        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Handle with Care 191...........       1/17/2002         9/1/2009
Evenflo First Choice 204..............       1/17/2002                *
Graco Infant 8457.....................       1/17/2002                *
Century Assura 4553...................       1/17/2002         9/1/2009
Century Smart Fit 4543................       1/17/2002                *
Cosco Arriva 02727....................       1/17/2002                *
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212....       1/17/2002                *
Peg Perego Primo Viaggio IMCC00US.....        9/1/2009                *
Graco Snugride........................        9/1/2009               *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Until further notice, any vehicle manufactured after the effective
  date specified is still subject to testing with this child restraint
  system.

    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 is manufactured on or 
after the effective date and prior to the termination date specified 
in the table below and 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):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Termination
                                         Effective date        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century Encore 4612...................       1/17/2002         9/1/2009
Cosco Olympian 02803..................       1/17/2002         9/1/2009
Britax Roundabout 161.................       1/17/2002                *
Century STE 1000 4416.................       1/17/2002                *
Cosco Touriva 02519...................       1/17/2002                *
Evenflo Horizon V 425.................       1/17/2002                *
Evenflo Medallion 254.................       1/17/2002                *
Safety 1st Comfort Ride 22-400........        9/1/2008         9/1/2009
Cosco Summit Deluxe 22-260............        9/1/2009                *
Evenflo Generations 352...............        9/1/2009                *
Graco SafeSeat (Step 2)...............        9/1/2009               *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Until further notice, any vehicle manufactured after the effective
  date specified is still subject to testing with this child restraint
  system.

    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 is manufactured on or after the effective date and 
prior to the termination date specified in the table below and that 
has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S21 or 
S23:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Termination
                                         Effective date        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roadster 9004..................       1/17/2002                *
Century Next Step 4920................       1/17/2002                *
Cosco High Back Booster 02-442........       1/17/2002                *
Evenflo Right Fit 245.................       1/17/2002               *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Until further notice, any vehicle manufactured after the effective
  date specified is still subject to testing with this child restraint
  system.

* * * * *

    Issued on September 14, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

 [FR Doc. E7-18716 Filed 9-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P