Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 6123 

State and location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of 

sale of flood insurance in community 

Current effective 

map date 

Date certain 

Federal assistance no longer 

available in 

SFHAs 

Doyline, Village of, Webster Parish ....... 220236 July 21, 1978, Emerg; September 18, 1979, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Minden, City of, Webster Parish ........... 220237 December 17, 1974, Emerg; July 18, 1985, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Sibley, Village of, Webster Parish ......... 220258 May 16, 1980, Emerg; July 18, 1985, Reg; 

March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Springhill, City of, Webster Parish ........ 220238 March 12, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1981, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Region X 

Oregon: 

Amity, City of, Yamhill County ............... 410250 May 20, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1981, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Carlton, City of, Yamhill County ............ 410251 May 6, 1975, Emerg; June 30, 1976, Reg; 

March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Dayton, City of, Yamhill County ............ 410252 June 4, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1982, Reg; 

March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Dundee, City of, Yamhill County ........... 410253 April 23, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1982, Reg; 

March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Lafayette, City of, Yamhill County ......... 410254 May 20, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1982, Reg; 

March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

McMinnville, City of, Yamhill County ..... 410255 July 22, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1982, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Newberg, City of, Yamhill County ......... 410256 August 5, 1974, Emerg; March 1, 1982, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Sheridan, City of, Yamhill County ......... 410257 January 21, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1980, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Willamina, City of, Yamhill County ........ 410258 January 21, 1975, Emerg; March 15, 1982, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Yamhill, City of, Yamhill County ............ 410259 June 30, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1982, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

Yamhill County, Unincorporated Areas 410249 May 28, 1974, Emerg; September 30, 1983, 

Reg; March 2, 2010, Susp. 

......do* .............. Do. 

* do=Ditto. 

Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. 

Dated: February 2, 2010. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2615 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0156] 

RIN 2127–AK57 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Occupant Crash Protection 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

agency’s response to petitions for 

reconsideration of a November 12, 2008 

final rule that amended the child 

restraint systems (CRSs) prescribed in 

Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 

‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’ The final 

rule established a new appendix, 

‘‘Appendix A–1,’’ which effectively 

deleted seven older CRSs, added five 

new CRSs, and provided cosmetic 

replacements for seven others. Today’s 

response grants some aspects of two of 

the petitions. All other requests are 

denied. 

DATES: This final rule is effective April 

9, 2010. If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by March 25, 

2010. 

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., 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: For 

non-legal issues, you may contact Ms. 

Carla Rush, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards, telephone 

202–366–1740, fax 202–366–2739. For 

legal issues, you may contact Ms. 

Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA 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: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

6124 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1 73 FR 66786; Docket No. NHTSA–08–0168. 

2 65 FR 30680; Docket No. NHTSA–00–7013; 

responses to petitions for reconsideration, 66 FR 

65376; Docket No. NHTSA 01–11110, 66 FR 65376; 

Docket No. NHTSA 01–11110. 

3 73 FR 66786; Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0168. 

4 84 FR 20445; Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0064. 

5Alliance members at the time of the petition 

included: BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor 

Company, General Motors, Jaguar/Land Rover, 

Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi, Porsche, 

Toyota, and Volkswagen. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

II. Background 

III. Petitions for Reconsideration 

IV. Final Rule; Agency Response to Petitions 

V. Technical Clarifications 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Overview 

This document responds to petitions 

for reconsideration of a November 12, 

2008 final rule 1 that updated Appendix 

A of FMVSS No. 208. The appendix lists 

CRSs that the agency uses in 

compliance testing of advanced air bag 

systems. The November 12, 2008 final 

rule replaced a number of older CRSs 

with those that are more available and 

more representative of the CRSs 

currently on the market. Today’s 

document grants a petition to exclude 

small vehicle manufacturers from the 

phase-in schedule of the final rule, 

grants the Alliance’s request to change 

the car bed model number designation, 

and adds the Evenflo Tribute 381xxx to 

the appendix. All other requests are 

denied. 

II. Background 

On May 12, 2000, NHTSA issued a 

final rule for advanced air bags 

(‘‘Advanced Air Bag Rule’’) that 

amended FMVSS No. 208 to, among 

other things, minimize injuries to small 

adults and young children due to air bag 

deployment.2 Under the Advanced Air 

Bag Rule, in order to minimize the risk 

to infants and small children from 

deploying air bags, vehicle 

manufacturers may suppress an air bag 

in the presence of a child restraint 

system (CRS) or provide a low risk 

deployment (LRD) system. 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, the CRSs 

in the appendix represent a large 

portion of the CRS market and CRSs 

with unique size and weight 

characteristics. NHTSA stated in the 

Advanced Air Bag Rule that the list will 

be updated periodically to subtract 

restraints that are no longer in 

production and to add new restraints 

(65 FR at 30724). 

On November 12, 2008, the agency 

published a final rule that updated 

Appendix A to replace a number of 

older CRSs with those that were more 

available and more representative of the 

CRSs currently on the market.3 The final 

rule continued to call the current 

appendix ‘‘Appendix A,’’ and 

established an ‘‘Appendix A–1’’ 

consisting of the updated appendix. The 

revisions made to establish Appendix 

A–1 included the deletion of seven 

existing CRSs, the addition of five new 

CRSs, and cosmetic replacements for 

seven existing CRSs. The final rule 

phased-in the use of the Appendix A– 

1 CRSs in compliance testing. Under the 

phase-in, 50 percent of vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2009 are subject to testing by NHTSA 

using Appendix A–1, and all vehicles 

tested by NHTSA that are manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2010 are subject 

to testing using Appendix A–1. 

On May 4, 2009, the agency denied a 

petition for rulemaking from the 

Alliance that requested, among other 

matters, that NHTSA commit to 

amending the list of child restraints in 

Appendix A every three years and allow 

manufacturers the option of certifying 

vehicles to any edition of Appendix A 

for five model years after the edition 

first becomes effective.4 We denied the 

petition because the requests were not 

conducive to maintaining the appendix, 

to ensuring child restraints are 

representative of the current fleet for 

testing with advanced air bag systems, 

and were unnecessarily restrictive. 

III. Petitions for Reconsideration 

The agency received petitions for 

reconsideration of the November 12, 

2008 final rule from: The Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),5

Ford Motor Company (Ford), Evenflo 

Company, Incorporated (Evenflo), IEE 

S.A. (IEE), and Vehicle Services 

Consulting, Inc. (VSCI). The issues 

raised by the petitioners are 

summarized below. 

Lead time and phase-in. The final rule 

specified that manufacturers must begin 

certifying 50 percent of their vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2009 to Appendix A–1 and all vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2010 to Appendix A–1. The Alliance, 

Ford, IEE and VSCI asked for changes to 

the phase-in schedule. 

Positioning procedure for car bed 

testing. The final rule made no change 

to the procedures for conducting testing 

with the newborn infant dummy 

installed in the car bed. The Alliance 

requested that the agency provide a 

procedure for positioning the infant 

dummy in the car bed in FMVSS No. 

208. 

Changes to car bed model number 

designation. The final rule adopted the 

Angel Guard Angel Ride Car Bed 

AA2403FOF in the final rule. The 

Alliance requested that the agency 

change the model designation to be less 

specific. 

Replacement seats. The final rule 

revisions to the appendix included the 

deletion of seven existing CRSs, the 

addition of five new CRSs, and cosmetic 

replacements for seven existing CRSs. 

Evenflo petitioned for removal of four 

Evenflo-manufactured seats and 

suggested the incorporation of 

replacement seats that are currently in 

production. 

In addition to the petition for 

reconsideration issues, the Alliance 

requested clarification on the use/ 

removal of three CRSs. 

IV. Final Rule; Agency Response to 

Petitions 

a. Lead Time and Phase-In 

The November 2008 final rule 

provided a two-year phase-in, such that 

50 percent of vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2009 must be 

certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 

when tested with the CRSs in the 

revised Appendix A (Appendix A–1), 

and all vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2010 must be so 

certified. Four organizations, the 

Alliance, Ford, IEE, and VSCI, 

submitted petitions for reconsideration 

of the final rule’s lead time and phasein. 

The Alliance stated that the lead time 

specified in the final rule would impose 

significant cost burden on the industry 

without any safety benefit, which it 

said, is especially problematic for them 

now because the financial resources of 

the industry are under tremendous 

strain. The Alliance stated that many 

manufacturers have already certified 

their model year 2010 vehicles to the 

existing Appendix A and that the leadtime and phase-in contained in the final 

rule would require a costly 

recertification of those vehicles. In a 

February 27, 2009 letter to the agency, 

the Alliance provided supplemental 

information on its petition. It estimated 

that recertifying vehicles in accordance 

with the phase-in schedule set forth in 

the final rule would lead to aggregate 

incremental costs for five companies to 

be $526,120 from that date until 

September 1, 2009 and an additional 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 6125 

6See test report provided in the docket for this 

final rule. 

7 Docket No. NHTSA–2007–28710–0016. 

$679,720 between September 1, 2009 

and September 1, 2010. The Alliance 

stated in its petition that the 

certification testing specified in the final 

rule can require in excess of 1,500 

individual child restraint installations, 

taking over 20 days to complete with 

high confidence. Based on this 

extensive testing, the Alliance stated 

that the burden placed on industry is 

very significant and there is little to no 

safety benefit estimated. Therefore, the 

Alliance petitioned that NHTSA 

postpone and extend the phase-in to 

three years on a schedule of 20 percent 

of vehicles built on or after September 

1, 2010, 50 percent of vehicles built on 

or after September 1, 2011 and 100 

percent of vehicles built on or after 

September 1, 2012. 

Ford, an Alliance member, also stated 

that the lead time and phase-in schedule 

is not sufficient. Ford submitted 

confidential information detailing a 

typical vehicle test plan with associated 

costs to conduct tests necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

passenger air bag suppression 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

IEE petitioned for a one-year delay of 

the current phase-in schedule. IEE 

stated that it has been the agency’s 

position that the compliance date for 

changes to Appendix A would be the 

next model year introduced one year 

after publication of a final rule 

modifying Appendix A. IEE stated that 

NHTSA did not publish the final rule 

modifying Appendix A before 

September 1, 2008, and the current final 

rule only provides 9 months and 18 

days, not a full year. IEE stated that 

‘‘[t]he supplier industry can not start on 

November 12, 2008 with the system 

calibration and testing for all vehicle 

models * * * a manufacturer decision 

has to be taken first in order that the 

supplier knows which models to focus 

on for short-term (September 1, 2009) 

adaptation, and for which models one 

more year would be available to 

guarantee certification.’’ IEE stated that 

NHTSA’s indicant tests cannot conclude 

that the changes in the CRS 

characteristics are not significant 

enough to alter an advanced air bag 

system’s performance. It noted that only 

four CRSs were used in this indicant 

testing with seventeen vehicles. IEE 

stated that a supplier can only decide if 

the modified Appendix A–1 alters the 

system’s performance, or not, after 

having tested all Appendix A–1 CRSs 

on all vehicle models it is equipping. It 

suggested that only testing a subset of 

new CRS, and then concluding there 

would be no issues with all the new 

CRS would not be acceptable in view of 

having to guarantee FMVSS No. 208 

compliance. IEE stated that NHTSA’s 

indicant testing ‘‘can not be used to 

motivate an earlier compliance.’’ 

Finally, VSCI was concerned that 

there is no provision in the final rule for 

small volume manufacturers (SVMs), 

and that the final rule phase-in period 

should not apply to all SVMs. It noted 

that there are some SVMs that only sell 

one model in the U.S., which means 

under the current final rule, those 

manufacturers would be required to be 

100 percent compliant within the first 

year without any lead time. VSCI 

suggested that the agency allow ‘‘* * * 

manufacturers selling fewer than 5,000 

vehicles per year in the U.S. * * * [to] 

wait until the end of the phase-in before 

having to comply.’’ This provision 

would allow all SVMs to be 100 percent 

compliant within two years. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA is granting the petition to 

exclude SVMs from the phase-in 

schedule of the final rule and is denying 

all other aspects of the petition 

concerning lead time. The agency agrees 

that under the final rule, SVMs with 

only a single model line would have to 

be fully compliant with Appendix A–1 

a year ahead of larger vehicle 

manufacturers. We believe this would 

be unduly burdensome on SVMs. 

Today’s final rule is amended such that 

SVMs selling fewer than 5,000 vehicles 

per year in the U.S. may certify to either 

version of Appendix A until the end of 

the phase-in. 

NHTSA is denying the petitions to 

change the provisions of the final rule 

lead time and phase-in schedule for 

other manufacturers. In the November 

2008 final rule, the agency stated its 

belief that the phase-in effectively 

balanced the competing considerations 

in updating the appendix, namely, the 

need to have a representative list that 

ensures the compatibility of suppression 

and LRD systems with CRSs in the field, 

while maintaining some stability to 

minimize the certification burden on 

vehicle manufacturers. Based on our 

analysis of the petitions for 

reconsideration, we do not agree with 

the petitioner’s requests for additional 

lead time and extended phase-in. The 

Alliance’s petition for an additional year 

of lead time would effectively postpone 

use of the new Appendix A–1 seats for 

approximately two years and would 

only require 20% of the fleet to be 

certified at that time (or 50% under the 

IEE petition request). We believe that 

delaying implementation of Appendix 

A–1 is in conflict with the agency’s goal 

of moving toward a newer version of the 

Appendix that would better ensure the 

CRSs are available and representative of 

those in use. Furthermore, the 

Alliance’s additional request to extend 

the phase-in for three years on top of the 

additional year of lead time would 

compound the delay in implementation 

of the testing and diminish how 

representative the child seats are during 

that time period. 

In response to IEE, we note that our 

decision on lead time and phase-in was 

only partially based on testing the 

agency conducted with new vehicles 

and new child restraints. We 

acknowledge that our indicant testing 

was not all-inclusive (i.e., it did not test 

every type of CRS with every model of 

vehicle in the current fleet); however, it 

was considered as an indicator of 

general performance that could be 

anticipated by the use of CRSs in 

Appendix A–1. Our indicant testing 

used 4 representative CRSs and 17 new 

vehicles equipped with current 

suppression systems.6 The testing 

identified no compliance issues or 

challenges with the new seats, and 

bolstered the agency’s expectation that 

new vehicles would readily identify the 

CRSs without needing redesign and 

recalibration. It was also consistent with 

GM’s comments to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking 7 where GM 

stated, ‘‘Neither our warranty data or the 

feedback we receive through our 

continuous and close involvement with 

the Child Passenger Safety (CPS) 

community indicates that there are any 

child restraints in use that do not 

properly classify in our vehicles when 

used in the field.’’ 

The intention in providing a phase-in 

in the final rule was, in part, to provide 

vehicle manufacturers the flexibility of 

selecting vehicles that could readily 

comply with the new appendix in the 

first year and delay more challenging 

vehicle models, if they existed, to the 

following years. None of the petitioners 

provided any evidence that any of the 

vehicle models would need redesign or 

recalibration. 

We are not persuaded by IEE’s 

arguments for an additional year of lead 

time because of a perceived conflict 

between the final rule and the agency’s 

past position on implementation dates, 

and the fact that the rule only provides 

9 months and 18 days for certification. 

Only half of a vehicle manufacturer’s 

production needs to comply with the 

first year of the phase-in. Vehicle 

manufacturers can minimize 

recertification burdens by certifying 

their new model year 2010 vehicles to 

Appendix A–1 to meet the required 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

6126 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

8http://www.dentonatd.com/dentonatd/pdf/ 

cami.pdf. 

9See the NHTSA ex-parte memo provided in the 

docket for this final rule. 

percentage of vehicles that must be 

certified using Appendix A–1 for the 

first year of the phase-in. The effective 

date and phase-in schedule apply to all 

vehicles, without differentiation 

between new and ‘‘carryover’’ models 

(these are vehicles that were previously 

certified to the existing Appendix A). A 

manufacturer may choose to have new 

vehicle models, carryover models, or 

both, comprise the 50 percent phase-in 

requirement. The lead time and phasein schedule adopted in the final rule 

allow vehicle manufacturers to 

carryover a large percentage of its 

vehicles for a year to alleviate 

recertification burdens. 

b. Positioning Procedure for Car Bed 

Testing 

The November 12, 2008 final rule did 

not make amendments to positioning 

the newborn infant dummy in the car 

bed. It was also not discussed in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking or in the 

comments in response to that notice. 

Section S20.2.3 of FMVSS No. 208 

currently states: ‘‘(c) Position the 49 CFR 

Part 572 Subpart K Newborn Infant 

dummy in the car bed by following, to 

the extent possible, the car bed 

manufacturer’s instructions provided 

with the car bed for positioning infants.’’ 

The Alliance petitioned for a new 

positioning procedure for placing the 

newborn infant dummy in the Angel 

Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF car bed. 

It noted that when the dummy’s head is 

contained within the car bed, the 

dummy’s legs/feet rest on the opposite 

edge of the CRS. The Alliance noted that 

the Angel Guard Angel Ride 

AA2403FOF car bed is designed for a 

child up to 5 pounds. The Alliance 

requested that NHTSA provide a 

positioning procedure such that the 

dummy’s head is contained inside the 

CRS and its legs/feet are allowed to rest 

on the opposite edge of the CRS. The 

Alliance suggested this could be 

included in FMVSS No. 208 or included 

as a footnote to Appendix A–1. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA is denying the Alliance 

petition to adopt a positioning 

procedure for the newborn infant 

dummy in the car bed. The newborn 

infant dummy only weighs 

approximately 7.5 pounds.8 According 

to the label on the car bed, the bed can 

accommodate a child up to 9 pounds. 

We are also unconvinced that the exact 

position of the newborn infant dummy 

in the car bed would have any 

significant effect on FMVSS No. 208 

advanced air bag suppression testing. 

The distribution of where the newborn 

infant dummy weight is applied to the 

seat will not change significantly. The 

Alliance has not provided any data 

demonstrating that there are practical 

issues with the exact positioning of the 

newborn infant dummy in this car bed 

and we are unconvinced that sensing 

systems are not robust enough to 

accommodate small weight shifts within 

the carrier. 

c. Changes to Car Bed Model Number 

Designation 

The final rule adopted the Angel 

Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF car bed 

in Appendix A–1. In its petition, the 

Alliance noted that the model 

designation specified in the final rule 

for this car bed is no longer available. 

According to the Alliance, it contacted 

the manufacturer of this product and 

learned that the first two characters in 

the model number are for packaging and 

minor product changes that would not 

change its expected performance in 

FMVSS No. 208 low risk deployment 

and suppression tests. It also learned 

that the last three characters refer to the 

specification of fabric color (also not 

affecting FMVSS No. 208 performance). 

Therefore, the Alliance petitioned for 

the model designation for the Angel 

Guard Angel Ride infant car bed to be 

changed from AA2403FOF to 

xx2403xxx. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA is granting the Alliance’s 

petition to change the car bed model 

number designation. From our contact 

with the manufacturer,9 we learned that 

the first letter of the model number 

designates the way in which the car bed 

was packaged and should not have an 

influence on the performance of the car 

bed in FMVSS No. 208 CRS testing. The 

second letter designates small 

manufacturing changes that would not 

affect the footprint, and weight of the 

seat significantly and the last three 

letters denote that the CRS had the 

factory option fabric (FOF) installed. 

The manufacturer reported that the 

second letter currently changed due to 

label changes and a re-designed harness. 

The label changes were made in 

response to NHTSA’s Ease-of-Use 

program. Because the letters do not 

represent any feature of the infant car 

bed that would affect FMVSS No. 208 

CRS testing, the agency agrees with the 

Alliance that there is no need to specify 

these designations. 

d. Replacement Seats 

The final rule adopted revisions to the 

appendix that included the deletion of 

seven existing CRSs, addition of five 

new CRSs, and cosmetic replacements 

for seven existing CRSs. In its petition 

for reconsideration, Evenflo requested 

that four Evenflo-manufactured CRSs be 

removed from Appendix A–1 because 

they are no longer in production. They 

include: the Discovery Adjust Right 212, 

Medallion 254, Right Fit 245, and 

Tribute V 379xxxx. Evenflo provided 

three potential replacements for the four 

CRSs. 

Agency Response 

The agency is denying the Evenflo 

petition. With regard to three out of four 

of the CRSs, these CRSs (Discovery 

Adjust Right 212, Medallion 254 and 

Right Fit 245) were not proposed for 

deletion in the NPRM and subsequently 

not deleted in the final rule. The agency 

purposely left these seats effective in the 

final rule since they were not targeted 

for immediate replacement at that time. 

While replacing these CRSs is presently 

out of scope of this rulemaking, the 

agency may consider these suggestions 

in a future update of Appendix A. 

The fourth seat, the Evenflo Tribute V 

379xxxx, was a new addition to the 

appendix. Evenflo suggested that the 

Tribute 381xxxx would be a viable 

replacement for the Tribute V 379xxxx. 

According to Evenflo, the latter CRS 

went out of production in October of 

2008 (shortly prior to the publication of 

the final rule). This request was also 

made by the Alliance in its petition for 

reconsideration. The agency is partially 

granting this request. See Section V.b. of 

today’s document for the agency’s 

response regarding this CRS. 

V. Technical Clarifications 

a. Evenflo First Choice 204 

The November 12, 2008 final rule 

regulatory text of Appendix A–1 did not 

include the Evenflo First Choice 204 

and the preamble was silent about its 

removal. In its petition, the Alliance 

requested confirmation that the removal 

of this CRS was intentional since the 

CRS was not specifically discussed in 

the NPRM and was not mentioned in 

the preamble of the final rule. 

Agency Response 

We confirm that the Evenflo First 

Choice 204 has been removed and is not 

included in Appendix A–1. In section 

II.c. of the NPRM (72 FR at 54407), 

NHTSA requested comment on 

changing CRSs in Appendix A other 

than those proposed to be deleted in 

section II.a. or added in section II.b. The 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 6127 

10As discussed in Section IV.d. of this document, 

Evenflo also petitioned for this seat to be replaced 

with the Evenflo Tribute 381xxxx. 

11See the NHTSA ex-parte memo provided in the 

docket for this final rule. 

changes proposed by section II.c were 

primarily to update older CRSs in the 

appendix with newer model CRSs that 

have the same main physical features as 

the older restraints. TRW commented 

that either the Evenflo First Choice 204 

or the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 

212 should be deleted because, aside 

from the latter having a removable base, 

they are identical seats. The agency 

agreed to delete the Evenflo First Choice 

204 because this child restraint shares 

the same shell as the Evenflo Adjust 

Right. Since FMVSS No. 208 CRS 

testing is done with and without the 

base attached, testing with the Evenflo 

Adjust Right in the ‘‘no base’’ mode is 

the same as testing with the Evenflo 

First Choice 204. The agency decided to 

delete the Evenflo First Choice 204 to 

avoid redundant testing. 

b. Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx 

In its February 27, 2009 supplement 

to its petition, the Alliance stated that 

it learned, subsequent to its December 

2008 petition, that the Evenflo Tribute 

V 379xxxx was no longer in production 

after October 2008. The Alliance urged 

NHTSA to confirm that in view of the 

seat ‘‘becoming unavailable’’ prior to the 

issuance of the final rule adopting 

Appendix A–1, vehicle manufacturers 

will not need to certify compliance of 

their vehicles using this CRS.10 It said 

that the agency stated the following on 

November 19, 2003 regarding 

unavailability: 

Even with diligent review of Appendix A, 

there may be rare occasions when a new 

addition of the list becomes unavailable or 

undergoes a significant design change 

between the time an amendment is proposed 

and when it is issued as a final rule. Under 

this limited circumstance, the agency would 

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. 68 FR at 65179, 65188. 

Agency Response 

The view of the agency expressed in 

the 2003 statement was explained in 

and modified by the November 12, 2008 

final rule (73 FR at 66795). In the 2008 

final rule, NHTSA re-evaluated the 

statement and determined that it was 

overtaken by events in today’s context. 

We also determined that the decision as 

to whether a CRS differs so much on the 

day of publication of a rule from the 

CRS that the agency had proposed 

should be addressed in a rulemaking 

proceeding. It was not a matter to be 

assumed that the CRS would be 

removed from compliance testing. 

Relatedly, while production of the 

Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx ceased in 

October 2008, no data was provided by 

the Alliance to suggest that the seats 

were ‘‘unavailable for purchase.’’ Thus, 

we decline to remove the CRS from the 

appendix. 

That being said, we have decided to 

grant Evenflo’s request to include the 

Evenflo Tribute 381xxxx in the 

appendix. Both the Evenflo Tribute V 

379xxxx and the Tribute 381xxxx have 

the same footprint and dimensions. The 

only minor differences are the internal 

harness adjuster and the number of 

adjustments for the shoulder belts and 

crotch strap. We will not replace the 

Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx with the 

Evenflo Tribute 381xxxx, but will 

instead allow certification testing to be 

conducted with either CRS. We are 

allowing this option in this final rule so 

as not to penalize manufacturers that 

diligently procured a sufficient supply 

of the Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx for 

testing and have since certified vehicles 

to the final rule. The agency will permit 

this unique option since both CRSs 

would provide an equivalent level of 

safety for the purposes of FMVSS No. 

208 testing. 

c. Cosco Arriva 22–013PAW 

In its February 27, 2009 supplement 

to its petition, the Alliance reported that 

Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG), the 

manufacturer of the Cosco Arriva 22– 

013PAW, has indicated that the CRS is 

no longer in production due to the 

unavailability of its base, No. 22– 

999WHO. The Alliance urged NHTSA to 

confirm that in view of the seat 

‘‘becoming unavailable’’ prior to the 

issuance of the final rule adopting 

Appendix A–1, vehicle manufacturers 

will not need to certify compliance of 

their vehicles using this CRS. 

Agency Response 

The agency does not concur with the 

Alliance’s reliance on the statement of 

the 2003 final rule for the reasons given 

above regarding the Cosco Arriva 22– 

013PAW. Further, the agency received 

information from the manufacturer that 

the base, No. 22–999WHO would be put 

back in production for FMVSS No. 208 

testing.11 Accordingly, the request is 

denied. 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 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 

slightly adjusts the phase-in schedule 

for SVMs and makes small adjustments 

to 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, 

some of which qualify as small entities. 

However, the entities that qualify as 

small businesses will not be 

significantly affected by this rulemaking 

because this rule adjusts the phase-in 

schedule for them, which is a positive 

impact. These entities are already 

required to comply with the advanced 

air bag requirements, so this final rule 

does not establish new requirements. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

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 issue of preemption in 

connection with today’s rulemaking. 

The issue of preemption can arise in 

connection with NHTSA rules in two 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

6128 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 unavoidably preempts State 

legislative and administrative law, not 

today’s rulemaking, so consultation 

would be unnecessary. 

Second, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility of implied 

preemption in some instances, 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 an NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes the State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

However, NHTSA has considered the 

nature and purpose of today’s final rule 

and does not foresee any potential State 

requirements that might conflict with it. 

Without any conflict, there could not be 

any implied preemption. 

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. 

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. The November 12, 2008 final 

rule contained a collection of 

information because of the phase-in 

reporting requirements. There was no 

burden to the general public. 

The November 12, 2008 final rule 

required manufacturers of passenger 

cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 

3,856 kg (8,500 lb) or less, to annually 

submit a report, and maintain records 

related to the report, concerning the 

number of such vehicles that meet the 

FMVSS No. 208 requirements using 

Appendix A–1 during the phase-in of 

those requirements. The purpose of the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements is to assist the agency in 

determining whether a manufacturer of 

vehicles has complied with the 

requirements during the phase-in 

period. Today’s final rule has no further 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ 

There are no voluntary consensus 

standards that address the CRSs that 

should be included in Appendix A. 

Civil Justice Reform 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The issue of preemption is 

discussed above in connection with E.O. 

13132. 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 (UMRA) requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted for inflation, 

with base year of 1995). 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 6129 

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 in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Incorporation by reference, 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set 

forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 571.208 is amended by: 

■ • Adding S14.8.5 

■ • Revising Appendix A–1 

§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant 

crash protection. 

* * * * * 

S14.8.5 Until September 1, 2011, 

manufacturers selling fewer than 5,000 

vehicles per year in the U.S. may certify 

their vehicles 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. 

* * * * * 

Appendix A–1 to § 571.208—Selection 

of Child Restraint Systems 

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 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 XX2403XXX.

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 22– 

999 WHO.

September 25, 2007. 

Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212.December 1, 1999. 

Graco Infant 8457 ..... December 1, 1999. 

Graco Snugride ......... September 25, 2007. 

Peg Perego Primo 

Viaggio SIP 

IMUN00US.

September 25, 2007. 

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 or Evenflo 

Tribute 381xxxx.

September 25, 2007. 

Evenflo Medallion 254 December 1, 1999. 

Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back 

Booster 22–262.

September 25, 2007. 

SUBPART C—FORWARD-FACING AND

CONVERTIBLE CHILD RESTRAINTS OF

APPENDIX A–1—Continued 

Manufactured on or 

after 

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 

Booster 22–262.

September 25, 2007. 

Issued: January 25, 2010. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2610 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 0810141351–9087–02] 

RIN 0648–XU22 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Atka Mackerel in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES