Federal Register, Volume 72 Issue 185 (Tuesday, September 25, 2007)

[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:

* * * * *

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