[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 12, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66786-66802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26812]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA-08-0168]
RIN 2127-AK02
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to update many of the
child restraint systems (CRSs) listed in Appendix A of the standard.
The CRSs in Appendix A are used by NHTSA to test advanced air bag
suppression or low risk deployment systems, to ensure that the air bag
systems pose no reasonable safety risk to infants and small children in
the real world. The amendments replace the CRSs listed in Appendix A
with CRSs that are more available and more representative of the CRS
fleet currently on the market.
DATES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your
petition must be received by December 29, 2008.
Effective date: The date on which this final rule amends the CFR is
January 12, 2009.
This final rule adopts a one-year phase-in of the requirement to
test with the child restraints in the revised Appendix A. Under the
phase-in, 50 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2009 must be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with the
CRSs on the revised Appendix A, and all vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2010 must be so certified.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets
by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Cuentas, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division (telephone 202-
366-4583, fax 202-493-2739). For legal issues, contact Deirdre Fujita,
Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820). You
may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Factors for Decision-Making
a. Guiding Factors
b. Child Restraint Data
c. Additional Considerations
III. Proposed Changes
IV. Comments and Agency Responses on CRSs in Appendix A
a. Deletions
b. Additions (Identified in Table 1)
1. Proposed Inclusion of Graco Snugride to Subpart B
2. Proposed Inclusion of Peg Perego Primo Viaggio
IMCC00US to Subpart B
3. Proposed Inclusion of the Evenflo Generations 352 to
Subpart C
4. Proposed Inclusion of Cosco Summit Deluxe 22-260 to
Subpart C
5. Proposed Inclusion of the Graco SafeSeat (Step 2)
8B02 to Subpart C
c. Updating Other CRSs in Appendix A (Identified in Table 2)
1. Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF (Subpart A)
2. Cosco Arriva 22-013 (Subpart B)
3. Britax Roundabout E9L02 (Subpart C)
4. Graco ComfortSport (Subpart C)
5. Evenflo Tribute V Deluxe 379 (Subpart C)
6. Graco Cherished Cargo (Subpart D)
7. Cosco High Back Booster 22-209 (Subpart D)
V. Compliance Date
VI. Early Compliance and Picking and Choosing of CRSs
VII. Testing Issues
a. Positioning of Adjustable Features
b. Testing the Car Bed
c. Testing Forward-Facing-Only CRSs in Rear-Facing
Configurations
d. Specifying the Type Of Harness Used For Testing
VIII. Suggestions for Future Amendments
a. Publishing a Yearly Bulletin
b. Meaning of ``Available for Purchase''
c. Developing ``standard'' models of CRSs
d. Define ``model'' in Child Restraint System Standard
e. Rear-Facing CRSs With High Profiles
IX. Specification of a Manufactured On or After Date for the Newly
Added CRSs
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
This final rule amends FMVSS No. 208 to update the child restraint
systems (CRSs) listed in Appendix A of the standard. The notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding this final rule was published on
September 25, 2007 (72 FR 54402; Docket 2007-28710).
I. Background
FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) requires passenger cars and trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 3,856 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds (lb)) or less and
an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb) or less to be
equipped with seat belts and frontal air bags for the protection of
vehicle occupants in crashes. While air bags have been very effective
in protecting people in moderate and high speed frontal crashes, there
have been instances in which they have caused serious or fatal injuries
to occupants who were very close to the air bag when it deployed. On
May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule to require that air bags be
designed to create less risk of serious air bag-induced injuries and
provide improved frontal crash protection for all occupants, by means
that include advanced air bag technology (``Advanced Air Bag Rule,'' 65
FR 30680, Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013). Under the Advanced Air Bag Rule,
to minimize the risk to infants and small children from deploying air
bags, manufacturers may suppress an air bag in the presence of a CRS or
provide a low risk deployment (LRD) system.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The LRD option involves deployment of the air bag in the
presence of a Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) test
dummy, representing a 12-month-old child, in a rear-facing child
restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66787]]
To minimize the risk to children, manufacturers relying on an air
bag suppression or LRD system must ensure that the vehicle complies
with the suppression or LRD requirements when tested with the CRSs
specified in Appendix A of the standard. As part of ensuring the
robustness of automatic air bag suppression and LRD systems, NHTSA made
sure that the appendix contained CRSs that represented a large portion
of the CRS market and CRSs with unique size and weight characteristics.
NHTSA also planned regular updates to Appendix A.
On November 19, 2003, in response to petitions for reconsideration
of the May 2000 Advanced Air Bag Rule, the agency published a final
rule that revised Appendix A by adding two CRSs that were equipped with
components that attach to a vehicle's LATCH \2\ system (68 FR 65179,
Docket No. NHTSA 03-16476). The appendix has not been updated since
then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``LATCH'' stands for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children,'' a term that was developed by child restraint
manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child
restraint anchorage system that vehicle manufacturers must install
pursuant to FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR
Sec. 571.225). The LATCH system is comprised of two lower
anchorages and one tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage is a rigid
round rod or bar onto which the connector of a CRS can be attached.
FMVSS No. 225 does not permit vehicle manufacturers to install LATCH
systems in front designated seating positions unless the vehicle has
an air bag on-off switch meeting the requirements of S4.5.4 of FMVSS
No. 208. Since September 1, 2002, CRSs have been required by FMVSS
No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR Sec. 571.213), to have
permanently attached components that enable the CRS to connect to a
LATCH system on a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRSs in Appendix A
Appendix A is made up of four (4) subparts, subparts A through D.
There are one (1) car bed, seven (7) rear-facing child restraint
systems, nine (9) forward-facing toddler and forward-facing convertible
CRSs and four (4) forward-facing toddler/belt positioning booster
systems currently listed and deemed ``effective'' (i.e., may be used in
compliance testing) in Appendix A.
Subpart A lists a car bed that can be used by the agency
to test the suppression system of a vehicle that is manufactured on or
after the effective date specified in Appendix A and that has been
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208, S19.
Subpart B lists rear-facing CRSs that can be used by the
agency to test the suppression system or the LRD capabilities of a
vehicle that is manufactured on or after the effective date and prior
to the termination date specified in the appendix and that has been
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208, S19.
Subpart C lists forward-facing toddler and forward-facing
convertible \3\ CRSs that can be used by the agency to test the
suppression system or the LRD capabilities of a vehicle that is
manufactured on or after the effective date and prior to the
termination date specified in the appendix and that has been certified
as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208, S19 or S21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A convertible CRS is one that converts from a rear-facing
seat to a forward-facing seat. A combination CRS is one that
converts from a forward-facing seat to a booster seat or a CRS that
is a convertible that can also be used as a booster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart D lists forward-facing toddler/belt positioning
booster systems and belt positioning booster systems that can be used
by the agency to test the suppression system capabilities of a vehicle
that is manufactured on or after the effective date and prior to the
termination date specified in the appendix and that has been certified
as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208, S21 or S23.
II. Factors for Decision-Making
a. Guiding Factors
The November 2003 FMVSS No. 208 final rule discussed factors that
the agency considers in deciding whether Appendix A should be updated
(68 FR at 65188). NHTSA reviews the appendix to: Maintain a spectrum of
CRSs that is representative of the CRS population in production, ensure
that only relatively current restraints will be used for compliance
testing, determine the availability of the CRSs and determine any
change in design, other than those that are purely cosmetic. (If a
change to a CRS were clearly cosmetic, such as color scheme or
upholstery, the list would not be modified.) \4\ In considering whether
a particular restraint should be in Appendix A, the agency considers
whether the restraint--
\4\ We also stated in the rule that, in considering whether to
amend the appendix, we assess whether a variety of restraint
manufacturers are represented in the appendix, and whether a
combination of restraints are in the appendix. Id. These
considerations bear on our assessment of the degree to which the
CRSs in the appendix are representative of child restraints in the
real world and assess the robustness of advanced air bag systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Has mass and dimensions representative of many restraints on the
market,
--Has mass and dimensions representing outliers, and
--Has been a high sales volume model.
In developing the 2007 NPRM, NHTSA evaluated data, discussed below,
and systematically evaluated the CRSs in Appendix A. We assessed child
restraint system dimensions, weight (mass) and sales volumes (based on
confidential manufacturers' data) to identify which CRSs have
dimensions that were representative of the average restraint in today's
market, and which were possible outliers, with dimensions, weight \5\
and/or footprints \6\ markedly outside of those of the ``average'' CRS.
In addition, the agency identified which CRSs had high production
totals and, therefore, likely to have the greatest market share
(highest sales volume).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Since the CRSs are used to test air bag suppression systems,
it was important to identify which CRSs were the lightest and
heaviest, and those that are representative of the average restraint
in today's market in terms of weight.
\6\ Some air bag suppression systems may have trouble sensing a
CRS if the footprint is shaped in a way that loads the air bag
suppression system sensors or load cells differently than the CRSs
for which the suppression system was designed to recognize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Child Restraint Data
The data used for the NPRM were obtained from CRS manufacturers and
NHTSA's Ease-of-Use (EOU) consumer information program. The agency's
EOU program started in 2002 in response to the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, which
directed NHTSA to issue a notice to establish a child restraint safety
rating consumer information program to provide practicable, readily
understandable, and timely information to consumers for use in making
informed decisions in the purchase of child restraints. The EOU program
provides information about child restraints with features that are
easier for consumers to use and install correctly. The EOU program
seeks to evaluate all CRSs available for sale at retail outlets.
The 2006 EOU program assessed 99 different CRSs (including
carryover seats from the previous year that were not changed), selected
from 14 different manufacturers (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25344). In
addition to those 99 CRSs, data for the CRSs currently listed in
Appendix A were also collected during the 2006 EOU program. These EOU
data were used to determine whether any changes to the appendix were
warranted.
c. Additional Considerations
The agency believes that Appendix A should include CRSs with a
gamut of features that would robustly assess advanced air bag
technologies. Automatic air bag suppression systems suppress the air
bag when a small child or a child in a CRS is placed on the seat, and
enable the air bag's deployment when most adults occupy the seat. With
[[Page 66788]]
respect to CRSs in Appendix A, LRD systems deploy the air bag in the
presence of a CRABI dummy in a rear-facing CRS. The design and
calibration of the advanced air bag system used must perform
satisfactorily with a wide range of CRSs that could be installed in the
vehicle. With that in mind, the NPRM considered the following factors
in choosing CRSs for inclusion in Appendix A.
First, with LRD systems for infants already being used in some
vehicles, the agency sought to include rear-facing child restraints of
varying seat back heights. On the one hand, rear-facing CRSs with
relatively low seat back heights could in some circumstances present a
more challenging test of an LRD system, especially one consisting of an
air bag mounted on the top of the instrument panel, since the back of
the CRS presents less of a reaction surface (resistance). With a low
back, the air bag could fully pressurize and interact in a fully
energized state with the child's head as the bag comes over the top of
the CRS seat back. However, recent agency testing indicates that CRSs
with high backs provide significant performance challenges to infant
LRD systems. Therefore, we sought to include in Appendix A rear-facing
and convertible CRSs with seat back heights that range from 12.75 to 27
in 7 8 to diversify the spectrum of seat back heights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The upper end of the spectrum (27 in) represents convertible
CRSs, which have higher seat back heights than rear-facing-only
CRSs.
\8\ The height measurement used for the rear-facing CRSs is the
height with their base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, features such as handles and sunshields of a rear-facing
CRS may complicate and challenge the sensing operation of certain
advanced air bag systems relying on future technologies such as vision-
based advanced air bag systems. To ensure that advanced air bags
perform well with all types of rear-facing CRSs, the agency
purposefully includes in Appendix A rear-facing CRSs that have handles
and sunshields. NHTSA compliance test procedures specify adjustments of
the handles and sunshields to the positions specified in the standard
to ensure the robustness of the advanced air bag system.
Third, since CRSs have been required to have LATCH components since
September 1, 2002, the agency has decided to replace many of the older
non-LATCH CRSs in Appendix A with new equivalent LATCH-equipped CRSs
from the same manufacturer.\9\ On the other hand, when the LATCH
requirement became effective in 2002 for child restraints, CRS
manufacturers did not significantly change CRS structures or designs.
Accordingly, we expect that suppression and LRD systems will react to
LATCH and non-LATCH CRSs similarly. In addition, very few vehicles will
have lower anchors in the front outboard passenger seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The newly added car bed is the only CRS replacement that
came from a different manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Changes
After considering the factors for decision-making discussed in the
previous section of this preamble, NHTSA proposed to delete certain
CRSs from Appendix A and to add others.\10\ The agency noted that some
CRSs undergo annual cosmetic changes that result in different model
numbers for the new version, and that some of the model numbers of the
CRSs in the NPRM could thus be different in the final rule to reflect
the latest model number. The agency docketed a document entitled,
``Technical Assessment of Child Restraint Systems for FMVSS No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, Appendix A,'' that includes dimensional
information, pictures, and statistical data on the current CRSs in the
appendix and the CRSs proposed for inclusion in the appendix (Docket
No. 2007-28710-0002) (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Technical
Assessment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ We noted in the November 2003 FMVSS No. 208 final rule that
our periodic review of the child restraints in the appendix may
cause the number of CRSs contained therein to change slightly as we
identify different trends in the use of CRSs from prior periods. We
said then that the number of CRSs should not vary by more than 10-20
percent absent any dramatic changes in the design of restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency proposed to delete six (6) existing CRSs and to add five
(5) new CRSs (see Table 1 below, which reproduces Table 1 of the NPRM).
The reasons for each proposed deletion or addition were discussed in
detail in the NPRM and readers may refer to the NPRM for that
information (72 FR at 54405-54407). Our proposed deletions were based
generally on CRSs that did not offer any unique characteristics, those
that were produced in the smallest quantities, or those that have not
been in production for some time. If we proposed eliminating a CRS that
offered a unique characteristic, we proposed to replace it with a
similar CRS. Our proposed additions also sought to include more LATCH-
equipped CRSs in the appendix.
In addition, comments were requested on cosmetic replacements of
other CRSs in Appendix A (see Table 2 below, which reproduces Table 2
of the NPRM). The reasons for the updates were discussed in detail in
the NPRM (72 FR at 54407-54408). These changes primarily would update
the older CRSs in the appendix with newer model CRSs that have the same
main physical features as the older restraints. To obtain information
on whether CRSs in Appendix A could be replaced by newer, more
available models with the same relevant physical features as the
Appendix A child restraints, we contacted each manufacturer of the
listed CRS and asked which of their more recently-produced CRSs could
be considered an equivalent replacement for the Appendix A CRS. With
one exception related to the Cosco Dream Ride car bed, manufacturers
were able to suggest a possible replacement.\11\ We decided that the
CRSs in the Appendix that have been out of production the longest
(i.e., the hardest CRSs to acquire for testing purposes) should be
replaced with newer-model CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Subpart A of the appendix lists the Cosco Dream Ride car
bed which is no longer being manufactured for retail sale. Cosco was
unable to suggest a replacement for this CRS because the
manufacturer no longer sells car beds to the general public (the CRS
is manufactured and sold mainly for special needs accounts). After
consulting with the major CRS manufacturers, we only found one car
bed that is being manufactured, the Angel Guard Angel Ride. We
proposed the Angel Guard Angel Ride as our replacement choice
because the CRS is available to the general public.
Table 1--Summary of Proposed Deletions and Additions to Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Type Appendix subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deletions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Handle With Care 191.
Century Assura 4553.. Rear-Facing...... B.
Century Encore 4612.. Convertible...... C.
Cosco Olympian 02803. Convertible...... C.
[[Page 66789]]
Safety 1st Comfort Ride 22-400.
Britax Expressway ISOFIX...... Forward-Facing... C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graco Snugride................ Rear-Facing...... B.
Peg Perego Viaggio IMCC00US.
Cosco Summit DX 22- Forward-Facing... C.
260.
Evenflo Generations 352.
Graco Safeseat (Step 2)....... Combination...... C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--CRSs That Could Be Replaced With Similar, More Recently
Produced Restraints, and What Those Replacements Should Be
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS in Appendix
Appendix A subpart A Type of CRS Replacement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................... Cosco Dream Car bed........ Angel Guard
Ride. Angel Ride
AA240
3FOF.
B.................... Cosco Arriva 02- Rear-facing.... Cosco Arriva
727. 22-01
3.
C.................... Britax Convertible.... Britax
Roundabout. Roundabout
E9L02
.
C.................... Century Encore Convertible.... Graco
\12\. ComfortSport.
C.................... Evenflo Horizon Convertible.... Evenflo Tribute
V. 5 Deluxe
379.
D.................... Century Next Combination.... Graco Cherished
Step. Cargo.
D.................... Cosco High Back Booster........ Cosco Hi Back
Booster. Booster 22-209.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Comments and Agency Responses on CRSs in Appendix A
The agency received comments on the proposal from the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),\13\ Porsche Cars North America,
Inc. (Porsche), TRW Automotive (TRW), Ferrari, General Motors (GM), the
Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), and from community
interest groups Safe Ride News and Traffic Safety Projects. Commenters
overwhelmingly supported the deletions identified in Table 1 and Table
2 and generally supported the proposed additions identified in the
tables, with many suggesting further amendments to Appendix A. Several
commenters raised concerns about the effective date. For example, the
Alliance stated that it believes that as many as possible of the
unavailable CRSs in Appendix A should be replaced with respect to new
vehicle models, but manufacturers should be allowed to continue to
certify previously certified models using the existing version of the
appendix for at least three years.\14\ In contrast, Safe Ride News
expressed concern that the proposed lead time ``could stretch out the
wait before these new CRSs are introduced for testing to Model Year
2010 or later.'' Some commenters asked for clarification of testing
issues, and there were a number of ideas suggested for improving the
ease and timeliness of future amendments to Appendix A and for
selecting the CRSs that should be included in the appendix. These and
other issues are addressed in this and the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ We later realized that reference to the Encore was in
error.
\13\ The Alliance is made up of BMW group, Chrysler LLC, Ford
Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche,
Toyota, and Volkswagen.
\14\ In a petition for rulemaking dated April 27, 2007, the
Alliance requested NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 208 to allow
manufacturers the option of certifying vehicles to any edition of
Appendix A for five model years after the edition first becomes
effective. (In its comment to the September 25, 2007 NPRM, the
Alliance reduced the suggested 5-year compliance period to 3 years
for this effort to revise Appendix A, recognizing that the appendix
has not been amended in several years.)
The petition also requested that the agency commit to amending
the appendix every three years and revise the view the agency
announced in the past that the appendix should be amended annually.
The Alliance believes that annual revisions are not needed to
protect children because experience has shown that, despite the fact
that the appendix has not been amended since 2003, there is no known
incident in which a child in a CRS in the front seat of a vehicle
equipped with advanced air bags received a serious injury due to the
deployment of an air bag. In addition, the Alliance believed that
annual updates to the appendix is inconsistent with the realities of
the automobile industry, because retesting and recertifying existing
vehicle models every year as new CRSs are added to the appendix
would, as the petitioner stated, ``create a tremendous burden on
manufacturers which * * * [in light of the absence of known injuries
to a child caused by an advanced air bag system] would yield little
or no safety benefits.'' The petitioner stated that it recognized
that ``in the event of some unanticipated safety need, such as the
introduction of an entirely new style of CRS that captures a
significant portion of the market, the agency could revise the
appendix--subject to notice and lead time constraints--without
waiting for three years from the prior update.'' The agency is
responding to issues raised in the petition both in this final rule,
and in a separate rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accompanying this final rule is an updated Technical Assessment of
Child Restraint Systems that we have placed in the docket for this
final rule (``2008 Technical Assessment''). The assessment contains
dimensional information and pictures of the CRSs adopted into Appendix
A by this final rule, and statistical data of past EOU data.
To improve the clarity of the appendix, we have reformatted the
tables of Appendix A and have set forth an Appendix A-1 which
incorporates the revisions adopted by this final rule.
a. Deletions
All commenters supported the proposed deletion of the six CRSs from
Appendix A (described in Table 1, above). No commenter opposed the
deletions. Several commenters suggested that we refresh all the CRSs in
the appendix.
Agency Response: We are adopting the proposed deletions for the
reasons discussed in the NPRM. Regarding the Britax Expressway ISOFIX,
this CRS is removed from Appendix A effective on the date of
publication of this final rule.
Deleting and replacing all the CRSs in the appendix is outside the
scope of the present rulemaking. However, we concur with the view that
circumstances may warrant updating more than 10 to 20 percent of the
number of CRSs in the appendix. The allocation of agency
[[Page 66790]]
resources have hampered our periodic updates of the appendix, so it
could be prudent for a rulemaking, such as today's final rule, to
affect more than 10 to 20 percent of the CRSs in the appendix.
b. Additions (Identified in Table 1)
With the exception of the Peg Perego Viaggio IMCC00US, the
five child restraints that we proposed to add to Appendix A were
supported by commenters. Accordingly, with the exception of the Peg
Perego Viaggio IMCC00US, we are adopting the CRSs for the
reasons provided in the NPRM. However, several commenters had questions
about some of the restraints and requested clarification of the
proposal.
1. Proposed Inclusion of Graco Snugride to Subpart B
GM and the Alliance stated that the NPRM did not provide a model
number in Table 1 or in the proposed regulatory text, while the
preamble and 2007 Technical Assessment denoted model 8643. TRW
noted that it observed that myriad variants of the Snugride exist which
appear to have essentially similar construction to the 8643
model and which would likely perform identically in suppression or LRD
tests.
Agency Response: Our intent was not to provide a model number for
this CRS in the regulatory text. The NPRM mistakenly included the model
number for the Graco Snugride in the preamble and the 2007 Technical
Assessment.
Due to the dynamic nature of the CRS industry, when selecting new
CRSs for the appendix, the agency sought to provide, to the extent
possible, generic model numbers. The agency's intention was to make it
easier for vehicle manufacturers to find the newly added CRSs by
providing model numbers that do not specify patterns for soft goods,
type of padding, etc., i.e., for items that would not affect the
performance of the advanced air bag system. For some CRSs, such as for
Evenflo child restraints, this meant requiring simply a number
prefix,\15\ or just a name, such as for Graco child restraints, but
some CRSs required complete model numbers, such as the child restraints
produced by Cosco. Thus, for the Graco Snugride no model number was
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In the appendix, the additional numbers following the
prefix are indicated by ``X''s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Inclusion of Peg Perego Primo Viaggio IMCC00US to
Subpart B
Ferrari stated that the model number proposed for this CRS was out
of production and recommended the addition of the new model number
IMUN00US. TRW stated that the rubber inserts in the belt slots of the
Primo Viaggio have a tendency to grab the seat belt webbing, making it
difficult to achieve the maximum 134 N belt tension called for in FMVSS
No. 208.
Agency Response: We agree to include model IMUN00US instead of
IMCC00US. Market data indicate that the model IMCC00US was discontinued
in August 2007 and replaced with the new model name and number Peg
Perego Primo Viaggio SIP IMUN00US. The changes made for the new version
of the Primo Viaggio SIP are a new handlebar shape and more ear/head
padding.
NHTSA installed the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio in seventeen (17)
model year (MY) 2008 vehicles and found that while the rubber inserts
do make it more difficult to achieve the desired belt tension, the
desired belt tension is attainable. We note that, to achieve the
specified load, the CRS base was pre-loaded prior to installing the CRS
onto the base. Since the IMUN00US is similar structurally to the
IMCC00US and the specified FMVSS No. 208 belt tension is achievable
using the IMUN00US, we are adding the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio SIP
IMUN00US to Appendix A. Photographs of the two CRSs can be found in the
2008 Technical Assessment.
3. Proposed Inclusion of the Evenflo Generations 352 to
Subpart C
The NPRM characterized the Evenflo Generations as a convertible
CRS.
GM and the Alliance stated that this CRS was not on the
manufacturer's website. Ferrari and TRW pointed out that this CRS
should be classified as a combination CRS. Ferrari stated that it
supports the addition of the Evenflo Generations only if it will be
exempted from testing in a rearward facing configuration. TRW stated
that there were similar models to the CRS, such as the Generations
3521804.
Agency Response: We are adding the CRS to Appendix A, but we agree
with Ferrari and TRW that this CRS was categorized incorrectly in the
NPRM as a convertible CRS. This CRS is a forward-facing-only
combination CRS. Accordingly, it is listed under the booster car seat
section of the manufacturer's Web site.
As explained earlier in this preamble, for purposes of Appendix A,
Evenflo child restraints can be identified by a generic model number
consisting of a number prefix. The 352 model number provided
in the NPRM was merely a prefix of the intended model number. To avoid
confusion, we have revised the model number to indicate that the actual
model number is several digits long and that the 352 was simply a
prefix. The similar model observed by TRW beginning with the 352 prefix
is thus an acceptable model.
With regard to combination CRSs, Appendix A categories were
developed prior to the development of combination CRSs. Therefore,
there is not a subpart of the appendix specific to these restraints.
These seats can perform as a forward-facing harness restraint as well
as a booster seat using a vehicle's seat belt, so they can technically
accommodate a one-year-old, three-year-old, and six-year-old dummy.
When considering which subpart of the appendix to categorize these
seats, we noted that the FMVSS No. 208 advanced air bag system
requirements do not require combination CRSs in Subpart C to be tested
with the six-year-old dummy. (See FMVSS No. 208, S23.) Therefore, to
ensure adequate testing of all the modes a combination CRS can be used
for, we are listing the Evenflo Generations 352xxxx in both Subparts C
and D of Appendix A.
The agency is responding to Ferrari's comment that the CRS should
only be used in rearward facing configurations in the section of this
preamble entitled, ``Testing Issues.''
4. Proposed Inclusion of Cosco Summit Deluxe 22-260 to Subpart
C
GM stated that it could not find a CRS with the precise name and
model number provided in the NPRM and suggested the Summit Deluxe High
Back Booster Car Seat model 22565 or the Summit High Back Booster Car
Seat model 22260, noting that both have very similar appearance and
look like the CRS in the photograph in the 2007 Technical Assessment.
The Alliance also pointed out that it could not identify any Cosco CRS
with the precise name and model number identified in the NPRM. Ferrari
supported the addition of the Summit Deluxe ``only if it will be
exempted from testing in rearward facing configurations.''
Agency Response: The agency concurs with the GM comment and is
adopting the Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster model 22-262 into
Subparts C and D of the appendix. A picture and measurements of the CRS
can be found in the 2008 Technical Assessment. The agency is responding
to Ferrari's comment that the CRS should only be used in rearward
facing configurations in the section of this preamble entitled,
``Testing Issues.''
[[Page 66791]]
5. Proposed Inclusion of the Graco SafeSeat (Step 2) 8B02 to
Subpart C
The Alliance stated that this CRS was on the manufacturer's Web
site but that the Alliance was advised by Graco that the company has
stopped manufacturing a model with the number or will do so in the very
near future. The Alliance stated that NHTSA should substitute the new
model name/number that Graco will use for this CRS. TRW stated that
Model 8B02 was not found at any of six local large retailers,
while a very similar model 8B05 was found at a local retailer and an
online source was located for this model.
Agency Response: As discussed earlier, we mistakenly included the
model number in the preamble. A model number is not needed. A Graco
representative (see agency ex parte memorandum in the docket for this
final rule) confirmed that Graco model numbers identify only cosmetic
features and that identifying the shell does not necessitate
identifying a model number. Therefore, the Alliance's concerns about
that particular model being discontinued or TRW's concern about not
finding that particular model at large retail stores is not a problem.
(In addition, this CRS was incorrectly categorized as a combination CRS
in Table 1 of the NPRM. As stated in the preamble of that document, the
child restraint is a forward-facing only CRS.) However, we are adding
the word ``Toddler'' to the name because Graco's Web site and the EOU
Web site both list this CRS as the Graco Toddler SafeSeat. Thus, this
final rule adopts the Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2.
c. Updating Other CRSs in Appendix A (Identified in Table 2)
Commenters generally supported the seven changes identified in
Table 2 of the NPRM preamble (the same Table 2 above of today's
document).
1. Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF (Subpart A)
No commenter objected to including this CRS, but TRW stated that it
was unable to find a retail source for this CRS. TRW also expressed
concern about the size of this CRS because, the commenter believed,
vehicles may not have enough seat belt webbing to reach around it with
the vehicle seat fully forward. TRW recommended specifying in FMVSS No.
208 that when the vehicle seat belt lacks the length to reach around a
CRS, the vehicle seat is moved to the ``first position rearward of full
forward where the seat belt will go around the CRS.''
Agency Response: The agency is replacing the Cosco Dream Ride with
the Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF, a car bed with a 3-point harness,
for the reasons provided in the NPRM. The CRS can be ordered directly
through Angel Guard and through other sources listed on the
manufacturer's Web site (http://www.angel-guard.com). The agency is
responding to TRW's concern about vehicles' having sufficient belt
length to encircle the restraint in the section of this preamble
entitled, ``Testing Issues.''
2. Cosco Arriva 22-013 (Subpart B)
In their comments, GM and the Alliance stated that they could not
find this CRS on the manufacturer's Web site. TRW also could not find
any sources for this CRS and was informed that it is being phased out.
Furthermore, TRW requested clarification on whether the Arriva 02-727
should be tested with its base.
Agency Response: We are adopting the Cosco Arriva 22-
013PAW, a rear-facing CRS with a 5-point harness, to replace its older
counterpart as proposed. The Cosco Arriva 22-013PAW is mainly
distributed to hospitals, health departments, and child safety
businesses or organizations and is not sold at retailers (these CRSs
are called ``institutional CRSs''). However, this CRS is easily
available to the public as it can be ordered through Cosco or its
distributor, National Safety Resources.\16\ We will test the CRS with
the base 22-999WHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A representative of the manufacturer verified that they are
contemplating phasing out this CRS; however, they said that they
would continue producing it as long as there was a demand for it
(see agency ex parte memorandum in the docket for this final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Britax Roundabout E9L02 (Subpart C)
The only comment received on this CRS was from TRW, which supported
the change. TRW stated that this CRS was found at large retailers.
Agency Response: We are making the proposed change. However, we
will refer to the new restraint as the Britax Roundabout E9L02xx; the
last two digits of the model number are not needed because they
indicate a specific fabric design. The Britax Roundabout E9L02xx is a
convertible CRS with a 5-point harness.
4. Graco ComfortSport (Subpart C)
The NPRM requested comments on replacing the Century Encore with
the Graco ComfortSport. However, the reference to the Century Encore
was a mistake; that CRS was proposed to be deleted from Appendix A.
GM and the Alliance realized the mistake, stating that the Graco
ComfortSport is actually a replacement for the Century STE 1000, not
the Century Encore. In addition, the Alliance asked for the
identification of a model number for the Graco ComfortSport. TRW stated
that it was advised that the model number provided in the 2007
Technical Assessment was recalled and that a new version was becoming
available. TRW noted that it purchased a ComfortSport 8C00 for
evaluation, because it was advised that all ComfortSports have the same
shell.
Agency Response: Commenters are correct that we meant the Graco
ComfortSport to replace the Century STE 1000. (The Century STE 1000 and
the Century Encore have essentially the same shell, thus the
ComfortSport could have replaced either of these CRSs.) No commenter
opposed the addition of the Graco ComfortSport, a convertible CRS with
a 5-point harness. We are thus adopting the proposed change.
As discussed earlier, a model number is not necessary to adequately
identify this Graco CRS. However, we note that several ComfortSport
models produced between January 2, 2007 and August 31, 2007 were
recalled due to possible misrouting of the LATCH belt during assembly.
Graco has assured us that new versions are available and that the model
numbers of the new versions end in the number two (2). However, there
is still no need to specify a model number for this CRS in Appendix A
as no substantive changes were made to the CRS that will affect the
performance of a suppression or LRD system.
5. Evenflo Tribute V Deluxe 379 (Subpart C)
The NPRM requested comments on replacing the Evenflo Horizon V with
the Evenflo Tribute V Deluxe 379. The only comment on this proposed
change was from TRW, which stated that it could not find the Evenflo
Tribute V Deluxe with the model number provided in the NPRM.
Agency Response: As explained above, the ``379'' is just a prefix
that precedes four other digits of the 7-digit model number. We are
clarifying the regulatory text to make this clear. Further, we are
removing the ``Deluxe'' specification because it only designates the
fabric used and the addition of a cup holder, which are features that
will not likely affect the performance of a suppression or LRD system.
Accordingly, this final rule replaces the Evenflo Horizon V with the
Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx, a convertible CRS with a 5-point harness.
[[Page 66792]]
6. Graco Cherished Cargo (Subpart D)
GM and the Alliance stated that they could not find the Cherished
Cargo on the manufacturer's Web site, although several models that
share the name Cargo do appear. TRW claimed that Graco advised them
that this CRS was discontinued, but that all Cargo models such as the
Platinum, Ultra, etc., use the same shell and are very similar. TRW
recommended we avoid the Cherished Cargo and choose a different, more
readily available model of the Cargo series, such as the Platinum
Cargo.
Agency Response: For the reasons of availability raised by the
commenters, we are replacing the Century Next Step with the Graco
Platinum Cargo, a forward-facing-only combination CRS with a 5-point
harness. It will be listed in both Subparts C and D of the appendix.
Graco has informed NHTSA that the Cherished Cargo was not discontinued,
but that retailers no longer want to carry this CRS in stock (see
agency ex parte memorandum in the docket for this final rule). Graco
also confirmed that the Platinum Cargo has the same shell as the
Cherished Cargo and it is more readily available. As shown in
photographs of the Platinum Cargo and the Cherished Cargo, the CRSs are
interchangeable (see the 2008 Technical Assessment).
7. Cosco High Back Booster 22-209 (Subpart D)
The NPRM requested comments on replacing the Cosco High Back
Booster with the Cosco High Back Booster 22-209. TRW commented that it
could not find this seat at any of the six large retailers it searched.
They found similar models such as the 22-206 at two of the six
retailers.
Agency Response: We are adopting the Cosco High Back Booster 22-
209, a forward-facing only combination CRS with a 5-point harness into
Subparts C and D of the appendix. As of July 28, 2008, the
manufacturer's Web site has a list of retailers for this CRS on its Web
site.
V. Compliance Date
Consistent with statements NHTSA made in the November 19, 2003
FMVSS No. 208 final rule regarding lead time (68 FR at 65188), the
agency proposed that the compliance date for the proposed changes to
Appendix A be the next model year introduced one year after publication
of a final rule modifying Appendix A. The agency believed that the lead
time would be sufficiently long to provide vehicle manufacturers time
to procure the needed child restraints, test vehicles, and certify the
air bag systems to FMVSS No. 208, while ensuring the satisfactory
performance of vehicles' suppression and LRD systems in an expeditious
manner.
This section addresses the following comments relating to the
compliance date.
1. The Alliance agreed that the proposed effective date of
September 1, 2009 (the beginning of the next model year introduced one
year after the anticipated date of publication of the final rule) is
reasonable with respect to new vehicle models and to new child
protection systems that will be utilized for the first time in MY 2010
(or later) vehicles. However, the commenter stated that requiring
vehicle manufacturers to recertify existing vehicles utilizing a
different set of CRSs would impose a tremendous burden on those
manufacturers. The Alliance urged the agency to provide manufacturers
the option of continuing to certify, for at least three years, ``carry-
over'' models that were previously certified to the existing version of
Appendix A. The commenter stated that, on average, over 75 percent of
its members' MY 2010 models will be equipped with ``child protection
systems that are identical to those in the equivalent MY 2009 models.''
The commenter stated that in all likelihood these models will be
certified using the CRSs on the existing Appendix A, and that requiring
them to be certified using the CRSs on the new Appendix would be
extremely burdensome, ``even apart from whether the child protection
systems in those models would need to be redesigned or recalibrated to
assure compliance with the standard.''
Porsche, a member of the Alliance, commented in support of the
Alliance's comments, but added that the model lifespan of Porsche
vehicles is typically longer than the industry norms, lasting for seven
years or more. Thus, Porsche requested that NHTSA allow manufacturers
to use the existing version of Appendix A for up to five years
following the effective date of the final rule.\17\ ``Any shorter time
period would likely result in a significant amount of unnecessary
testing, especially under circumstances when most or many of the child
restraints on the list are being replaced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Porsche noted that its request is similar to the petition
for rulemaking from the Alliance requesting NHTSA to provide a five-
year period for carry-over models that were certified to the
existing version of Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. GM, an Alliance member, requested that the effective date of the
changes in the final rule be no sooner than September 1, 2010. GM
submitted confidential information that provided an estimate of ``the
amount of work needed to evaluate, potentially modify, and validate''
its carry-over vehicle platforms and believed that the work could not
be completed by ``the next model year introduced one year after
publication of the final rule.'' GM believed that delaying the
effective date until September 1, 2010 would not increase any risks to
safety, because it has no indications ``that there are any CRSs in use
that do not properly classify'' with their advanced air bag systems.
3. Ferrari addressed the effective date for the Table 2 changes.
The commenter stated that there would be an unnecessary burden on the
manufacturers if existing vehicles models already certified to comply
with the old CRSs in Table 2 have to be certified again for compliance
with the new CRSs. Ferrari suggested that NHTSA add a provision to
FMVSS No. 208 stating that if a vehicle manufacturer previously
certified a vehicle model using an older CRS listed in Table 2 and has
so certified prior to the listing of the newer equivalent CRS in
Appendix A, then the vehicle manufacturer does not have to retest said
vehicle model using the newer CRS. Ferrari believed that ``This
approach avoids costly retesting and since the newer CRS is by
definition `equivalent' to the older CRS, there is no negative effect
on safety.''
4. In contrast to the above comments, some comments supported the
proposed effective date or expressed concern that it was too long. TRW
stated that it saw no concerns with the proposed effective date and
believed that it provides sufficient time to adopt the requirements of
the proposed rule. Safe Ride News believed that the proposed effective
date would be ``too long to wait.'' The commenter was concerned that
because the appendix has not been updated in years, it is no longer
representative of heavier CRSs that have been on the market for several
years. Safe Ride News did not consider it an unreasonable request to
shorten the lead-time for manufacturers since the new CRSs will not be
difficult to acquire.
Agency Response: NHTSA acknowledges that there are competing
considerations in updating Appendix A, specifically, the need to have a
representative list while maintaining some stability to minimize the
certification burden. Having the list reflect real-world use of a
variety of child restraints, and ensuring the compatibility of
suppression and LRD systems with those restraints, argue for
[[Page 66793]]
expediency. On the other hand, time constraints and costs associated
with certification burdens resulting from changes to the appendix
dictate that there are limits to how close in time an effective date
can be set. Moreover, as part of the exercise of balancing those
interests, we also consider the actual effect that the change to
Appendix A has on the robustness of the advanced air bag system, i.e.,
whether the change to the appendix will result in an actual real-world
safety improvement.
NHTSA evaluated the 2000-2007 EOU measurement data to determine if
there have been significant shifts in the characteristics of CRSs since
2000 and did not observe any indication of definitive shifts in the CRS
characteristics pertinent to air bag performance. (See 2008 Technical
Assessment.) For the few changes we did observe, the changes do not
appear enough to alter an advanced air bag system's performance. NHTSA
undertook indicant tests of seventeen (17) MY 2008 vehicles to assist
in determining whether the CRSs being added to the appendix would
require manufacturers to redesign their advanced air bag systems. (See
matrix in the 2008 Technical Assessment.) The tests indicate that the
suppression systems will continue to meet FMVSS No. 208 suppression
requirements. This finding is consistent with GM's comment that its
vehicles continue to classify CRSs correctly when tested with the CRSs
newly added to Appendix A.
The agency is currently working on a response to the Alliance's
April 2007 petition; therefore, the suggestions of the petitioners that
there should be a set lead time period of 3 or 5 years for re-
certification of carry-over models will be addressed in a subsequent
rulemaking action. However, to address the recertification concerns
with respect to this Appendix A update, we have decided that a
balancing of the competing interests can be effectively realized by
maintaining the compliance date of September 1, 2009 (the beginning of
the next model year introduced approximately one year after date of
publication of this final rule), while phasing-in the requirement.\18\
The effective date and phase-in schedule apply to all vehicles, without
differentiation between new and ``carry-over'' models (these are
vehicles that were previously certified to the existing Appendix A).
Under the phase-in, 50 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2009 must be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when
tested with the CRSs on the revised appendix (which we have designated
``Appendix A-1''), and all vehicles manufactured on or after September
1, 2010 must be so certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with
the Appendix A-1 child restraints. The September 1, 2009 date ensures
that suppression and LRD systems will be tested with representative
child restraints in an expeditious manner and thus maintains the
robustness of the FMVSS No. 208 test and the soundness of the child
protection systems, while the phase-in addresses the vehicle
manufacturers' certification burdens. Since there are no marked shifts
in the dimensional characteristics of CRSs, a phase-in will not have a
negative impact on child safety.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ As with all phase-ins, the agency is adopting a reporting
and recordkeeping requirement to facilitate the agency's enforcement
of the standard. These reporting and recordkeeping requirements will
be set forth in 49 CFR Part 585, Subpart D.
\19\ We are submitting a request for OMB clearance of the
collection of information required under a phase-in (for compliance
purposes, manufacturers must keep records of the vehicles certified
to the current Appendix A or to the amended Appendix A, and report
that information to NHTSA so that the agency knows which CRSs to use
to test vehicles to FMVSS No. 208 suppression and LRD requirements).
We request comments on the collection of information. See the
section of this preamble entitled, ``Regulatory Analyses and
Notices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phase-in has a practical effect of permitting 50 percent of
carry-over vehicles to continue to certify to the existing appendix for
a period, albeit for a shorter period than the Alliance's suggested
period of 3 years or Porsche's suggested period of 5 years. (A
manufacturer may choose to have new model vehicles or carry-over
vehicles of established models, or both, comprise the 50 percent of
vehicles that can be phased-in to the requirement to certify to the
revised Appendix A.) The ability to carry over a large percentage of
its vehicles for a year works to alleviate compliance burdens on
manufacturers.
On the other hand, in response to Safe Ride News, we do not agree
that the September 1, 2009 date could be moved up. Although the CRSs
newly added to Appendix A will be more readily available than the
current seats, recertifying to the new appendix will involve more than
just procuring the new CRSs. Vehicle manufacturers need time to test
and certify their vehicles. Further, as noted above, we have not seen
indication of significant shifts in the CRS characteristics pertinent
to air bag performance, so there is not a need to expedite the
September 1, 2009 date based on potential real-world safety benefits
that could be gained.
We are denying Ferrari's suggestion that we specify in FMVSS No.
208 that if a vehicle manufacturer previously certified a vehicle model
using an older CRS that was replaced by this final rule by an
``equivalent'' CRS (these CRSs were listed in Table 2 of the NPRM and
Table 2 of this preamble), the vehicle manufacturer does not have to
retest said vehicle model using the newer CRS. We do not believe that
such a provision is necessary or appropriate. NHTSA does not require
vehicle manufacturers to undertake any of the testing specified in the
FMVSSs; a manufacturer just needs to ensure that its vehicles meet the
requirements of the applicable standard when NHTSA tests the
manufacturer's vehicles using the procedures specified in the standard.
Thus, a manufacturer has the discretion to decide what testing, if any,
is needed to certify the vehicle with the updated appendix.
VI. Early Compliance and Picking and Choosing of CRSs
The NPRM proposed to provide manufacturers the option of early
compliance with the amended list, i.e., it was proposed that
manufacturers may choose to certify their vehicles with the updated
Appendix A prior to the effective date of the provision, as long as the
manufacturer notifies the agency that it is exercising this option.
However, NHTSA proposed that manufacturers choosing the early
compliance option would not be permitted to pick and choose among the
CRSs that would be newly added by the final rule. Vehicle manufacturers
choosing the early compliance option would have to ensure that their
vehicles meet the advanced air bag requirements when NHTSA uses all of
the newly-added CRSs (along with the CRSs that were not affected by the
amendment). NHTSA proposed this limitation to maintain the integrity of
the appendix: The child restraints in each appendix are each part of a
comprehensive set based on their physical characteristics and as such,
should be maintained as a set.
Agency Response: No commenter objected to the proposal, although
the Alliance stated that lead time constraints make it very unlikely
that any manufacturer will be able to certify its MY 2009 vehicles to
the new version, since, the commenter stated, the sales of these
vehicles generally commence in the fall of 2008 or earlier. We are
ratifying the provisions discussed above without change. Manufacturers
may not pick and choose to certify with some CRSs from Appendix A and
some from Appendix A-1.
[[Page 66794]]
VII. Testing Issues
Commenters raised questions relating to how the agency will use the
CRSs in Appendix A. These questions are answered below.
a. Positioning of Adjustable Features
TRW recommends that NHTSA specify what position(s) the adjustable
features, e.g., adjustable headrests (Evenflo Generations) and
positionable ``feet'' (Graco Snugride and Evenflo Discovery Adjust
Right), should be in during testing because, the commenter stated, they
may affect their installation in a vehicle and/or how the CRS interacts
with the vehicle seat, suppression system sensors, or deploying air
bags.
Agency Response: We do not agree that minor adjustments need to be
specified in the standard. For the FMVSS No. 208 tests conducted with
CRSs, the standard's test procedures state that the installer should
follow, to the extent possible, the child restraint manufacturer's
directions regarding proper installation of the CRS. Those directions
generally provide sufficient information to conduct the compliance
test. For example, Evenflo's instructions for the Evenflo Generations
state that the headrest should be positioned immediately above the
harness slots in use. For other adjustments, the standard is silent
because the adjustment is irrelevant for the compliance test; it does
not matter how the feature is adjusted because the adjustment does not
affect the performance results.
For a few adjustments, FMVSS No. 208 specifically overrides the
manufacturer's instructions but is clear in its instruction in those
instances. For example, the agency's FMVSS No. 208 test procedure (TP
208) does not require that the CRS be at the manufacturer's recommended
angle.\20\ In its comment on the NPRM, TRW recommended rewording FMVSS
No. 208 and TP208 to require that the CRS level indicator, if present,
be in the recommended range. We disagree with this suggestion. FMVSS
No. 208 does not specifically require that the CRS level indicator be
in the recommended range because the use of positioning devices, such
as rolled up towels, do not allow repeatable installations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ FMVSS No. 208, S20.2.1.5(c) states: ``* * * secure the
child restraint by following, to the extent possible, the child
restraint manufacturer's directions regarding proper installation of
the restraint for the orientation being installed.'' The TP 208-13,
Data Sheet 17, Page 111, states: ``Do not use any positioning
devices such as towels.'' Therefore, even though the CRS
manufacturer's directions specify a recommended angle, achieving it
will not be required for compliance tests if the use of positioning
devices is necessary.
\21\ In the May 12, 2000 Advanced Air Bag Rule, NHTSA
acknowledged that some consumers do use rolled up towels or blankets
and that manufacturers may need to address this in designing their
advanced air bag systems. The agency stated: ``We note that seat-
based systems may, however, need to `read' the presence of a rear-
facing infant restraint that has been stabilized with a rolled up
towel or blanket in accordance with the restraint manufacturer's
instructions. While we will not use such objects in conducting our
compliance tests, the presence of a towel or blanket under the most
rearward portion of the child restraint is a real world scenario
which some seat-based systems may need to accommodate.'' However,
for purposes of conducting our compliance tests, as explained above
we do not use the towels or blankets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Testing the Car Bed
In its comment on the proposal to adopt the Angel Guard Angel Ride
AA2403FOF car bed into Appendix A, TRW was concerned that due to the
large size of the car bed, some vehicles may not have enough seat belt
length to reach around this CRS with the vehicle seat fully forward.
TRW recommended that FMVSS No. 208 state that when the vehicle seat
belt length is insufficient to reach around a CRS, the vehicle seat is
to be moved to the first position rearward of full forward where the
seat belt will go around the CRS.
Agency Response: We agree to add a provision to FMVSS No. 208 to
address this concern. However, we note that TRW did not identify
whether it was expressing concern about the belt length of a specific
vehicle. FMVSS No. 208, S7.1, requires seat belt assemblies to
accommodate a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any position.
That standard defines the hip circumference of a 95th percentile adult
male as being 47.2 inches (in). The Angel Guard car bed is
approximately 53.75 in around its perimeter (based on a width of 21.75
in and two depth measurements of 16 in). While the car bed appears to
require 7 in of additional webbing, many vehicle manufacturers provide
additional belt length beyond the minimum required by the FMVSS.
According to 2007 and 2008 ``Buying a Safer Car'' information,\22\
manufacturers that provide longer seat belts typically provide an
average of 24.67 in of extra belt length for the right front passenger
position. However, for those vehicles that may not have sufficient
webbing to reach around the Angel Guard with the seat in the full
forward position, we are amending FMVSS No. 208, S20.2.3.2(a), to
provide a provision similar to the one in FMVSS No. 208, S20.1.2, which
allows the seat to be moved rearward if there is contact by the CRS or
test dummy with the instrument panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ http://www.safercar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Testing Forward-Facing-Only CRSs in Rear-Facing Configurations
Ferrari stated that it supported the addition of forward-facing-
only CRSs to subpart C of Appendix A only if the CRSs are excluded from
testing in a rear-facing configuration. Ferrari believed that forward-
facing-only CRSs should not be used for testing in a rear-facing
configuration and that FMVSS No. 208 and subpart C of the appendix
should be revised to exclude forward-facing-only CRSs from all types of
rear-facing testing. Ferrari also recommended splitting subpart C into
two lists, convertibles (C1) and forward-facing-only CRSs (C2), and to
revise S20.2.1.1, S20.2.2.1, and S20.4.2 to identify only CRSs from
subpart C1.
Agency Response: We partially agree and partially disagree with
this comment. In the NPRM we proposed to include the following
language, for the belted tests under subpart C: ``Any child restraint
listed in this subpart that does not have manufacturer instructions for
using it in a rear-facing position is excluded from use in testing in a
belted rear-facing configuration under S20.2.1.1(a) and S20.4.2.'' This
provision already exists in subpart C with regard to S20.2.1.1(a). We
proposed expanding the exclusion to S20.4.2 because there are forward-
facing-only CRSs in subpart C that cannot be belted in a rear-facing
configuration as specified by S20.4.2. Ferrari's comment was supportive
of the proposal, and we received no comment in opposition. We are thus
adopting the proposed language in the final rule. However, FMVSS No.
208, S20.2.2.1, is an unbelted rear-facing configuration test that
includes forward-facing-only CRSs as a misuse condition. Since this is
an unbelted test, belt routing is not an issue, so forward-facing-only
CRSs are not excluded from testing under this rear-facing configuration
test. Such an exclusion was not part of the NPRM.
We are not incorporating Ferrari's recommendation to create two
sub-categories in Subpart C in this rulemaking, but we will consider it
when undertaking future updates of Appendix A.
d. Specifying the Type of Harness Used for Testing
TRW recommends clarifying which type of harness/belt type should be
used when testing the CRSs because different types may have been
available for the same model number.
Agency Response: We disagree. In the NPRM preamble we specified the
[[Page 66795]]
harness type for the CRSs proposed in Table 1 for the reader's
convenience. Since the harness type is not an influencing factor in
suppression or LRD test results, the harness types specified were just
an indication of the type present in the CRSs evaluated, for
illustration purposes. The specifications were not intended to be and
are not binding as to the specific harness type with which the agency
must test. This final rule also specifies in the preamble the harness
type for the CRSs newly added to Appendix A for the reader's
convenience, and is not meant to require that the CRS with only that
type of harness type would be used for compliance testing.
VIII. Suggestions for Future Amendments
Commenters made a number of suggestions for improving the ease and
timeliness of future amendments to Appendix A and for selecting the
CRSs that should be included in the appendix. The more significant
suggestions are addressed below.
a. Publishing a Yearly Bulletin
AORC and TRW suggested the agency should work with CRS
manufacturers to publish a ``Bulletin'' annually, which lists suitable
equivalent model numbers and/or names to those listed in the appendix.
Agency Response: We do not consider an annual bulletin published by
NHTSA necessary or appropriate at this time. For today's final rule we
made every effort to ensure that the CRS models we are including in
Appendix A will be available, such as by making sure the model numbers
we list do not refer to features immaterial to the purposes of the
appendix, such as a soft good (i.e., upholstery, fabric) design. This
does not preclude industry from working together to identify equivalent
CRS models and publishing a yearly bulletin for industry to use.
b. Meaning of ``Available for Purchase''
The Alliance stated that even if the agency adopts the changes to
Appendix A proposed in the NPRM,
it will still be possible that some of the CRSs listed on the
revised Appendix A that is ultimately adopted will not be available
at the time the final rule is published. The Alliance urges NHTSA to
confirm that if that scenario were to occur, it will continue its
policy, first articulated in its November 19, 2003 notice, to `not
use the unavailable or altered CRS for compliance testing, and the
manufacturers would likewise be relieved of any burden to procure
the CRS or use it to test for suppression.' [Footnote omitted.] 68
FR at 65188. Moreover, the Alliance urges the agency to confirm that
for a CRS listed on any amended version of Appendix A to be deemed
`available for purchase' (which is the term NHTSA used in the
November 2003 notice), it must be available from its manufacturer on
the date of publication of the final rule promulgating the
amendment--as reflected by the manufacturer's Web site or other
product information. [Emphasis in text.]
Agency Response: We do not agree that the term ``available for
purchase'' means that the child restraint must be available from its
manufacturer. The agency considers CRSs to be available for purchase if
it can be purchased from any source. Consumers have available to them a
multitude of ways of acquiring child restraints in today's marketplace
and we believe that the appendix should reflect such real-world
acquisition of the restraints, since consumers could reasonably acquire
and use the restraint with the advanced air bag system. In addition,
after consideration of the statements made in the November 19, 2003
final rule that we would not use a CRS for compliance testing if it
were ``unavailable or altered'' on the date of publication of the final
rule adopting it into Appendix A, we have concluded that the statement
has been overtaken by events in today's context. We cannot imagine a
situation where a new CRS that has been added to the appendix will have
undergone a significant design change between the time of the proposal
and the final rule. CRSs adopted into the appendix are highly unlikely
to be unavailable or altered on the date of publication of the final
rule adopting them into the appendix since NHTSA works closely with CRS
manufacturers to ensure that newly added CRSs are not slated to be
unavailable or altered so close in time to the publication of the final
rule. Furthermore, if a CRS differs so much on the day of publication
of a rule from the CRS that the agency had proposed and intended to
adopt, that situation should be addressed in a rulemaking proceeding
that would remove the CRS from the appendix or reconsider the merits of
its inclusion. For these reasons, we decline to take the narrow view of
``available for purchase'' suggested by the Alliance.
In the NPRM we acknowledged that we were aware that some of the
proposed CRSs would likely change model numbers before the publication
of this final rule. Therefore, for this final rule, we have verified
the model numbers with the CRS manufacturers and the model numbers of
some of the CRSs have been updated to reflect the latest information
available from the CRS manufacturers.
c. Developing ``Standard'' Models of CRSs
TRW recommended the agency consider working with CRS manufacturers
to develop ``standard'' models of each of the CRSs in the appendix. The
``standard'' CRS would be based on a typical model offered for sale by
the CRS manufacturer, but would not be subject to change or
obsolescence by the manufacturer without notification to the agency and
would not be for sale to the public and would be sold only for the
purpose of testing and development.
Agency Response: We have considered a similar approach in the past,
which we have called the surrogate approach, and have noted some
concerns with it. In the November 2003 final rule (68 FR at 65189), we
stated that surrogates--
do not attempt to represent dimensional outliers * * * they cannot
ensure the robustness of an automatic suppression system under real
world conditions * * * Additionally, without amending FMVSS No. 213
to require restraints to be dimensionally similar to the surrogates,
there is no assurance that the surrogates will continue to represent
even the average dimensions of restraints on the market.
We continue to have these concerns with surrogates. Also, updating
the appendix serves the dual purposes of finding replacement CRSs for
those that have become unavailable, and of ensuring that the CRSs
listed are representative of those on the market. While developing
``standard'' models would address the availability problems associated
with the dynamic nature of the CRS industry, it does not address the
identification of new trends or outliers or the representation of
average CRSs on the market. Furthermore, such an effort would require a
major commitment from the CRS manufacturers and there is no indication
that they would be willing or able to pursue such an effort at this
time.
d. Define ``Model'' in Child Restraint System Standard
AORC and TRW suggested adopting a formal ``model'' designation
system for child restraints in FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213) similar
to FMVSS No. 209, S4.1(j), to better track any changes to child
restraint models that might affect performance in a suppression or LRD
test. FMVSS No. 209 requires that each seat belt assembly be
permanently and legibly marked or labeled with, among other things,
information on the ``model'' of the assembly. FMVSS No. 209 also states
that a ``model'' shall consist of a single combination of
[[Page 66796]]
webbing having a specific type of fiber weave and construction, and
hardware having a specific design, and that webbings of various colors
may be included under the same model. The commenters stated that FMVSS
No. 213 could be amended to define a ``child restraint model,'' in the
following manner: ``A model shall consist of a single combination of
shell, base, harness, and vehicle attachment hardware/provisions/
routing having a specific design. Webbing and seat upholstery of
various colors may be included under the same model.''
Agency Response: The suggestions raised by the commenters will be
kept in mind when addressing future Appendix A rulemakings. We note
that FMVSS No. 213, S5.5, already requires child restraints to be
labeled with the model name or number. Normally, the CRS manufacturers,
for their own tracking purposes, indicate with a stamp on the mold or
some other type of visual indication when a mold change has been made.
e. Rear-Facing CRSs With High Profiles
Safe Ride News believed that a low seat back height for rear-facing
CRSs is an important factor for LRD testing and so, the commenter
stated, it is important to include in Appendix A rear-facing CRSs with
low profiles. According to the commenter, we should ensure that the
appendix include restraints that can be used without a base because
restraints with a base tended to have a higher profile.
Agency Response: Seat back height was one of the parameters used by
the agency in selecting CRSs for Appendix A. All the rear-facing CRSs
in the revised Appendix A come with a base and can be used with or
without the base for the purposes of compliance testing. Appendix A has
rear-facing and convertible CRSs with seat back heights that range from
12.75 to 27 in.\23\ \24\ The rear-facing CRSs we are adding to the
appendix diversify the spectrum of seat back heights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The upper end of the spectrum (27 in) represents
convertible CRSs, which have higher seat back heights than rear-
facing-only CRSs.
\24\ The height measurement used for the rear-facing CRSs is the
height with their base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that contrary to the commenter's belief, agency LRD testing
on different car types has indicated that CRSs with high seat back
heights can for some designs provide higher injury values than the low
profile CRSs. Accordingly, we are keeping CRSs with high seat back
heights in our test program.
IX. Specification of a Manufactured On or After Date for the Newly
Added CRSs
In Appendix A-1 we have incorporated the NPRM date, September 25,
2007, as the ``manufactured on or after'' date for the newly added
CRSs. This is to distinguish these CRSs from others that may have been
manufactured prior to the September date and which may have had slight
design differences. (The agency is taking this step only as a
precaution; we do not know of any such differences between like-model
CRSs manufactured before September 25, 2007 and those studied by the
agency and discussed in the NPRM.) The CRSs that are unaffected by this
rulemaking are maintaining the December 1, 1999 date.
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The costs and benefits
of advanced air bags are discussed in the agency's Final Economic
Assessment for the May 2000 final rule (Docket 7013). The cost and
benefit analysis provided in that document would not be affected by
this final rule, since this final rule only adjusts and updates the
CRSs used in test procedures of that final rule. The minimal impacts of
today's amendment do not warrant preparation of a regulatory
evaluation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities.
I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers, but
the entities that qualify as small businesses will not be significantly
affected by this rulemaking because they are already required to comply
with the advanced air bag requirements. This final rule does not
establish new requirements, but instead only adjusts and updates the
CRSs used in test procedures of that final rule.
Executive Order 13132
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking does not have federalism implications because this final
rule does not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at
least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act contains an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the
standard prescribed under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is
this statutory command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking,
so consultation would be inappropriate.
Second, in addition to the express preemption noted above, the
Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on
motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort
law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a
NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861
(2000). NHTSA has not discerned any potential State requirements that
might conflict with the final rule, however, in part because such
conflicts can arise in varied contexts. We cannot completely rule out
the possibility that such a conflict may become apparent in the future
through subsequent experience with standard. NHTSA may opine on such
conflicts in the future, if warranted.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.
[[Page 66797]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule
contains a collection of information because of the phase-in reporting
requirements being established. There is no burden to the general
public. We will be submitting a request for OMB clearance for the
collection of information required under today's final rule.
These requirements and our estimates of the burden to vehicle
manufacturers are as follows:
NHTSA estimates there are 21 manufacturers of passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of
3,856 kg (8,500 lb) or less.
NHTSA estimates that the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden
on each manufacturer resulting from the collection of information is
one (1) hour.
NHTSA estimates that the annual cost burden on each manufacturer,
in U.S. dollars, on each manufacturer will be $35. No additional
resources will be expended by vehicle manufacturers to gather annual
production information because they already compile this data for their
own use.
The purpose of the reporting requirements will be to aid NHTSA in
determining whether a manufacturer has complied with the requirements
of FMVSS No. 208 during the phase-in of today's requirements.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Public Law 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments
shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as
a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the
agencies and departments.'' There are no voluntary consensus standards
that address the CRSs that should be included in Appendix A.
Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows: The preemptive
effect of this final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that
there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule will
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us at
the address provided at the beginning of this document.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
49 CFR Part 585
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as set
forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 66798]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.208 is amended by adding S14.8, revising S19.2.1,
S19.2.2(d), S20.1.1, the introductory text of S20.2.1.1,
S20.2.1.6.1(e), S20.2.2.1, S20.2.3.1, S20.2.3.2(a), S20.4.2, S21.2.1,
S22.1.1, S22.2.1.4(a), S22.2.1.6.1(f), S23.2.1, and S24.1.1.
0
3. Section 571.208 is amended by revising Appendix A, by adding
Appendix A-1 after Appendix A, and by moving Figures A1 and A2 that are
now at the end of Appendix A to follow Appendix A-1.
0
4. Section 571.208 is amended by revising the headings of Figures A1
and A2 that are now placed after Appendix A-1.
The amended and added text, appendices, and figures read as
follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S14.8 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and
before September 1, 2010. Vehicles manufactured on or after September
1, 2009 and before September 1, 2010, shall comply with S14.8.1 through
S14.8.4. At any time during the production year ending August 31, 2010,
each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles by make, model
and vehicle identification number that have been certified as complying
with S19, S21, and S23 (in addition to the other requirements specified
in this standard) when using the child restraint systems specified in
Appendix A-1 of this standard. The manufacturer's designation of a
vehicle as meeting the requirements when using the child restraint
systems in Appendix A-1 of this standard is irrevocable.
S14.8.1 Subject to S14.8.2, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2009, the number of vehicles certified as complying with
S19, S21, and S23 when using the child restraint systems specified in
Appendix A-1 of this standard shall be not less than 50 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
subject to S19, S21, and S23 of this standard manufactured on or after
September 1, 2006 and before September 1, 2009; or
(b) The manufacturer's production of vehicles subject to S19, S21,
and S23 manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and before September
1, 2010.
S14.8.2 For the purpose of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer under S14.8.1, a vehicle produced by more than one
manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer as provided
in S14.8.2(a) through (c), subject to S14.8.3.
(a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the
importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
(c) A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S14.8.2(a) or (b).
S14.8.3 For the purposes of calculating average annual production
of vehicle for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles by each
manufacturer under S14.8.1, each vehicle that is excluded from the
requirement to test with child restraints listed in Appendix A or A-1
of this standard is not counted.
S14.8.4 Until September 1, 2011, vehicles manufactured by a final-
stage manufacturer or alterer could be certified as complying with S19,
S21, and S23 when using the child restraint systems specified in
Appendix A. Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 by
these manufacturers must be certified as complying with S19, S21, and
S23 when using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1.
* * * * *
S19.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression
feature for the passenger air bag which results in deactivation of the
air bag during each of the static tests specified in S20.2 (using the
49 CFR Part 572 Subpart R 12-month-old CRABI child dummy in any of the
child restraints identified in sections B and C of Appendix A or A-1 of
this standard, as appropriate and the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart K Newborn
Infant dummy in any of the car beds identified in section A of Appendix
A or A-1, as appropriate), and activation of the air bag system during
each of the static tests specified in S20.3 (using the 49 CFR Part 572
Subpart O 5th percentile adult female dummy).
S19.2.2 * * *
(d) Shall be located within the interior of the vehicle and forward
of and above the design H-point of both the driver's and the right
front passenger's seat in their forwardmost seating positions and shall
not be located on or adjacent to a surface that can be used for
temporary or permanent storage of objects that could obscure the
telltale from either the driver's or right front passenger's view, or
located where the telltale would be obscured from the driver's view if
a rear-facing child restraint listed in Appendix A or A-1, as
appropriate, is installed in the right front passenger's seat.
* * * * *
S20.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a car bed, a rear facing child
restraint, or a convertible child restraint may be conducted using any
such restraint listed in sections A, B, and C, respectively, of
Appendix A or A-1 of this standard, as appropriate. The car bed, rear
facing child restraint, or convertible child restraint may be unused or
have been previously used only for automatic suppression tests. If it
has been used, there shall not be any visible damage prior to the test.
* * * * *
S20.2.1.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child
restraint specified in section B and section C of Appendix A or A-1 of
this standard, as appropriate, installed in the front outboard
passenger vehicle seat in the following orientations:
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
* * * * *
S20.2.1.6.1 * * *
(e) Use the loading device equipped with the loading foot shown in
Figure A1 and position it as shown in Figure A2 of Appendix A and
Appendix A-1 of this section. The 153 degree angle of the
loading device illustrated in Figure A2 is determined with an initial
preload of 7525N.
* * * * *
S20.2.2.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child
restraint specified in section B and section C of Appendix A or A-1 of
this standard, as appropriate.
* * * * *
S20.2.3.1 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any car bed
specified in section A of Appendix A or A-1 of this standard, as
appropriate.
* * * * *
S20.2.3.2 * * *
(a) Install the car bed following, to the extent possible, the car
bed manufacturer's directions regarding proper installation of the car
bed. If the seat belt cannot be secured around the car bed, move the
seat rearward to the
[[Page 66799]]
next detent that allows the belt to be secured around the car bed, or
if the seat is a power seat, using only the control that primarily
moves the seat fore and aft, move the seat rearward the minimum
distance necessary for the seat belt to be secured around the car bed.
* * * * *
S20.4.2 The vehicle shall comply in tests using any child restraint
specified in section B and section C of Appendix A or A-1 of this
standard, as appropriate.
* * * * *
S21.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression
feature for the passenger air bag which results in deactivation of the
air bag during each of the static tests specified in S22.2 (using the
49 CFR Part 572 Subpart P 3-year-old child dummy and, as applicable,
any child restraint specified in section C and section D of Appendix A
or A-1 of this standard, as appropriate), and activation of the air bag
system during each of the static tests specified in S22.3 (using the 49
CFR Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female dummy).
* * * * *
S22.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a forward facing child
restraint, including a booster seat where applicable, may be conducted
using any such restraint listed in section C and section D of Appendix
A or A-1 of this standard, as appropriate. The child restraint may be
unused or have been previously used only for automatic suppression
tests. If it has been used, there shall not be any visible damage prior
to the test. Booster seats are to be used in the manner appropriate for
a 3-year-old child of the same height and weight as the 3-year-old
child dummy.
* * * * *
S22.2.1.4 * * *
(a) Using the vehicle safety belts as specified in S22.2.1.5 with
section C and section D child restraints of Appendix A or A-1, as
appropriate, of this section designed to be secured to the vehicle seat
even when empty; and
* * * * *
S22.2.1.6.1 * * *
(f) Use the loading device equipped with the loading foot shown in
Figure A1 and position it as shown in Figure A2 of Appendix A and
Appendix A-1 of this standard. The 153 degree angle of the
loading device is determined with an initial preload of 7525 N.
* * * * *
S23.2.1 The vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic suppression
feature for the passenger frontal air bag system which results in
deactivation of the air bag during each of the static tests specified
in S24.2 (using the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N 6-year-old child dummy in
any of the child restraints specified in section D of Appendix A or A-1
of this standard, as appropriate), and activation of the air bag system
during each of the static tests specified in S24.3 (using the 49 CFR
Part 572 Subpart O 5th percentile adult female dummy).
* * * * *
S24.1.1 Tests specifying the use of a booster seat may be conducted
using any such restraint listed in section D of Appendix A or A-1 of
this standard, as appropriate. The booster seat may be unused or have
been previously used only for automatic suppression tests. If it has
been used, there shall not be any visible damage prior to the test.
Booster seats are to be used in the manner appropriate for a 6-year-old
child of the same height and weight as the 6-year-old child dummy.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A TO Sec. 571.208--SELECTION OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS
This Appendix A applies to vehicles manufactured before September
1, 2009 and to not more than 50 percent of a manufacturer's vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and before September 1,
2010, as specified in S14.8 of this standard. This appendix does not
apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010.
A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after December 1,
1999, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been certified as
being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19:
Subpart A--Car Bed Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Dream Ride 02-719.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems
specified in the table below, manufactured on or after December 1,
1999, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
to test the suppression or low risk deployment (LRD) system of a
vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR
571.208 S19. When the restraint system comes equipped with a removable
base, the test may be run either with the base attached or without the
base.
Subpart B--Rear-Facing Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Handle with Care 191.
Century Assura 4553.
Century Smart Fit 4543.
Cosco Arriva 02727.
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212.
Evenflo First Choice 204.
Graco Infant 8457.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems, and
forward-facing child restraint systems that also convert to rear-
facing, manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, may be used by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to test the suppression
or LRD system of a vehicle that has been certified as being in
compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19, or S21. (Note: Any child restraint
listed in this subpart that does not have manufacturer instructions for
using it in a rear-facing position is excluded from use in testing in a
belted rear-facing configuration under S20.2.1.1(a) and S20.4.2):
Subpart C--Forward-Facing and Convertible Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century Encore 4612.
Cosco Olympian 02803.
Britax Roundabout 161.
Century STE 1000 4416.
Cosco Touriva 02519.
Evenflo Horizon V 425.
Evenflo Medallion 254.
Safety 1st Comfort Ride 22-400.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems and
belt-positioning seats, manufactured on or after December 1, 1999, may
be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as test
devices to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S21 or S23:
Subpart D--Forward-Facing Child Restraints and Belt Positioning Seats of
Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roadster 9004.
Century Next Step 4920.
Cosco High Back Booster 02-442.
Evenflo Right Fit 245.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX A-1 TO Sec. 571.208--SELECTION OF CHILD SYSTEMS RESTRAINT
This Appendix A-1 applies to not less than 50 percent of a
manufacturer's vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 and
before September 1, 2010, as specified in S14.8
[[Page 66800]]
of this standard. This appendix applies to all vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2010.
A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after the date listed,
may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been certified as
being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19:
Subpart A--Car Bed Child Restraints of Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF.. September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems
specified in the table below, manufactured on or after the date listed,
may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
test the suppression or low risk deployment (LRD) system of a vehicle
that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19.
When the restraint system comes equipped with a removable base, the
test may be run either with the base attached or without the base.
Subpart B--Rear-Facing Child Restraints of Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century Smart Fit 4543............ December 1, 1999.
Cosco Arriva 22-013 PAW and base September 25, 2007.
22-999 WHO.
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212 December 1, 1999.
Graco Infant 8457................. December 1, 1999.
Graco Snugride.................... September 25, 2007.
Peg Perego Primo Viaggio SIP September 25, 2007.
IMUN00US.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems, and
forward-facing child restraint systems that also convert to rear-
facing, manufactured on or after the date listed, may be used by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to test the suppression
or LRD system of a vehicle that has been certified as being in
compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19, or S21. (Note: Any child restraint
listed in this subpart that does not have manufacturer instructions for
using it in a rear-facing position is excluded from use in testing in a
belted rear-facing configuration under S20.2.1.1(a) and S20.4.2):
Subpart C--Forward-Facing and Convertible Child Restraints of
Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roundabout E9L02xx......... September 25, 2007.
Graco ComfortSport................ September 25, 2007.
Cosco Touriva 02519............... December 1, 1999.
Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx......... September 25, 2007.
Evenflo Medallion 254............. December 1, 1999.
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back September 25, 2007.
Booster 22-262.
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx....... September 25, 2007.
Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2..... September 25, 2007.
Graco Platinum Cargo.............. September 25, 2007.
Cosco High Back Booster 22-209.... September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems and
belt-positioning seats, manufactured on or after the date listed, may
be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as test
devices to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S21 or S23:
Subpart D--Forward-Facing Child Restraints and Belt Positioning
Seats of Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roadster 9004.............. December 1, 1999
Graco Platinum Cargo.............. September 25, 2007
Cosco High Back Booster 22-209.... September 25, 2007
Evenflo Right Fit 245............. December 1, 1999
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx....... September 25, 2007
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back September 25, 2007
Booster 22-262.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66801]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO08.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO08.010
0
3. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
4. Part 585 is amended by revising Subpart D to read as follows:
PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
* * * * *
Subpart D--Appendix A-1 of FMVSS No. 208 Phase-in Reporting
Requirements
585.31 Scope
585.32 Purpose
585.33 Applicability
585.34 Definitions
585.35 Response to inquiries
585.36 Reporting requirements
585.37 Records
* * * * *
Sec. 585.31 Scope.
This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger
cars, and of trucks, buses and multipurpose
[[Page 66802]]
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,856
kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds (lb)) or less, to submit a report, and
maintain records related to the report, concerning the number of such
vehicles that are certified as complying with S19, S21, and S23 of
FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) when using the child restraint systems
specified in Appendix A-1 of this standard.
Sec. 585.32 Purpose.
The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a
manufacturer has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 208
when using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1 of
that standard.
Sec. 585.33 Applicability.
This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, and of
trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,856
kg (8,500 lb) or less.
Sec. 585.34 Definitions.
(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their
statutory meaning.
(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multipurpose
passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as defined in
Sec. 571.3 of this chapter.
(c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
(d) Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three
or fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the
United States during a production year.
Sec. 585.35 Response to inquiries.
At any time during the production year ending August 31, 2010, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make,
model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as
complying with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when using the
child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1 of that standard. The
manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle is
irrevocable.
Sec. 585.36 Reporting Requirements.
(a) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end
of the production year ending August 31, 2010, each manufacturer shall
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
concerning its compliance with requirements of Standard No. 208 when
using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1 of that
standard for its vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall
provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section and
in section 585.2 of this part.
(b) Phase-in report content--
(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each manufacturer shall
provide the number of vehicles manufactured in the current production
year, or, at the manufacturer's option, in each of the three previous
production years. A new manufacturer that is, for the first time,
manufacturing passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles
or buses for sale in the United States must report the number of
passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles or buses
manufactured during the current production year.
(2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall
report on the number of vehicles that meet the requirements of Standard
No. 208 when using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-
1 of that standard.
Sec. 585.37 Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec. 585.36 until December 31, 2013.
Issued on: October 30, 2008.
David Kelly,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-26812 Filed 11-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P