Document ID: NHTSA-2020-0094-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Crash Protection
Posted Date: 2020-10-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 210 (Thursday, October 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68541-68554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0094]
RIN 2127-AL90

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to update the 
child restraint systems (CRSs) listed in Appendix A-1 of the standard. 
NHTSA uses the CRSs in Appendix A-1 to test the performance of advanced 
air bag suppression and low risk deployment systems in either 
suppressing or deploying the air bag in a low-risk manner in the 
presence of a CRS. The proposed amendments would ensure that the CRSs 
used by NHTSA to test advanced air bags are representative of the 
current CRS fleet, and would make it easier for vehicle manufacturers 
and test laboratories to acquire CRSs for testing purposes.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not 
later than December 28, 2020. Under a proposed phase-in of final rule 
requirements, 50 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after the first 
September 1st after the publication date of the final rule would have 
to be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with the CRSs on 
the revised Appendix A-1, and all vehicles manufactured on or after the 
second September 1st after the publication date of the final rule would 
have to be so certified.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

[[Page 68542]]

online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We 
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the 
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will 
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.
    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).
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three 
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim 
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the 
claimed confidential business information, to the Docket at the address 
given above. When you send a comment containing information claimed to 
be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter 
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact Ms. Carla Rush, Office 
of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: 202-366-4583, Facsimile: 202-
493-2739 or Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone: 
202-366-2992, Facsimile: 202-366-3820. The mailing address of these 
officials is: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background on Advanced Air Bags and Appendix A
III. In Deciding To Update the Appendix
IV. Proposed Changes
    a. Deletions
    b. Updating Existing CRSs With Newer Models
    c. Additions
V. Integration of New Appendix A-1 in the Regulatory Text
VI. Proposed Compliance Dates
VII. Benefits and Costs Associated With the Proposed Rule
VIII. Public Participation
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    NHTSA is proposing to amend FMVSS No. 208 to update the CRSs listed 
in Appendix A-1 of the standard. The CRSs in Appendix A-1 are used by 
NHTSA to test advanced air bag suppression or low risk deployment 
systems to ensure that they mitigate the risk of harm to children and 
infants by either suppressing or deploying the air bag in a low-risk 
manner in the presence of a child in a CRS. NHTSA seeks to update 
Appendix A-1 to reflect the changes to the availability of CRSs in the 
marketplace since 2008, when the Appendix was last updated.
    The amendments proposed today would replace or update the 
identifying information for all the CRSs listed in Appendix A-1. This 
proposal would allow a phase-in of the amendment to give manufacturers 
reasonable time to certify their advanced air bag systems using the new 
CRSs. To effectuate the phase-in using the regulatory framework of 
FMVSS No. 208, this update would move the CRSs that are now in Appendix 
A-1 to Appendix A, and reference the new proposed CRSs in Appendix A-1.
    If the changes proposed in this NPRM are adopted, NHTSA would test 
advanced air bags with CRSs more representative of current CRSs than 
those now in Appendix A-1. Accordingly, air bag systems would be 
assessed using CRSs that consumers are using in vehicles. In addition, 
since the last significant update to the appendix was in 2008, many CRS 
models listed in the current appendix have been discontinued, and so 
are difficult and time-consuming to acquire. Updating the list of CRSs 
would make it easier for vehicle manufacturers and test laboratories to 
acquire the CRSs for testing purposes.

II. Background on Advanced Air Bags and Appendices A and A-1

    On May 12, 2000, NHTSA issued the Advanced Air Bag Rule (65 FR 
30680) in order to reduce the frequency and severity of air bag-related 
injuries to small adults and young children. One of the specific risks 
that the Advanced Air Bag Rule was intended to address was the risk 
that front passenger air bags pose to young children in CRSs. To this 
end, the Advanced Air Bag Rule amended FMVSS No. 208 to add new 
performance requirements for how the front passenger air bag must 
operate in the presence of a child in a CRS.
    The Advanced Air Bag Rule allows manufacturers to provide child 
protections using one of three compliance options. The first option 
requires the front passenger air bag system to automatically suppress 
when a child (whether in a CRS or not) is present (``suppression''). 
The second option requires that the front passenger air bag deploy only 
at a low level of force when a child (whether in a CRS or not) is 
present (``low risk deployment'' or ``LRD''). For these first two 
options, the vehicle must provide passenger-side protections for child-
sized test dummies in various positions, including in a CRS. The third 
compliance option requires the tracking of the passenger occupant's 
motion and suppresses the air bag if they are too close to the air bag 
(``dynamic automatic suppression system'' or ``DASS''). To comply using 
dynamic automatic suppression, a manufacturer must develop an 
acceptable test procedure, which must be adopted into FMVSS No. 208 
through an expedited rulemaking procedure. To date, no manufacturer has 
attempted to certify using the DASS option. FMVSS No. 208 permits 
vehicle manufacturers to choose different compliance options for 
different performance tests, and is technology neutral with regard to 
how a vehicle complies.
    For tests that involve air bag performance in the presence of 
anthropomorphic test dummies in CRSs, the manufacturers are required to 
certify that their vehicles will comply with the advanced air bag 
requirements when tested by NHTSA using the CRSs identified in Appendix 
A of FMVSS No. 208. As we explained in the Advanced

[[Page 68543]]

Air Bag Rule, NHTSA intended for the CRSs listed in Appendix A to be 
representative of a large portion of the CRS market across many CRS 
manufacturers. To keep Appendix A up to date, NHTSA amended it in final 
rules issued in December 2001 (66 FR 65375) and November 2003 (68 FR 
65179) to replace certain CRSs that were no longer in production and to 
add two LATCH-compatible CRSs, respectively.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems, requires 
certain vehicles and DSPs to be equipped with LATCH systems. FMVSS 
No. 213 requires CRSs (except for harnesses, car beds and booster 
seats) to be equipped with attachments that enable the CRS to attach 
to the vehicle's LATCH system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA most recently updated Appendix A in a final rule issued in 
November 2008 (73 FR 66786). NHTSA created a new ``Appendix A-1'' to 
facilitate phasing-in the requirement to certify vehicles with the 
updated CRSs.\2\ Today, Appendix A-1 is the only appendix in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The purpose of the one-year phase-in was to make the test 
burdens on manufacturers more reasonable, as manufacturers had to 
certify the compliance of all their vehicles' advanced air bag 
systems using the new CRSs. Appendix A-1 listed the new CRSs. 
Appendix A was retained with the CRSs it had listed. During the 
first year of the one-year phase-in, a specified portion of a 
manufacturer's new vehicles had to be certified as meeting the 
advanced air bag requirements when tested with the new CRSs in 
Appendix A-1, while the remaining portion could continue to be 
certified with the existing CRSs in Appendix A. Starting at the end 
of the phase-in, all vehicles had to be certified as meeting the 
requirements using the new CRSs in Appendix A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CRSs listed in Appendix A-1 are broken up into four subparts. 
Subpart A lists ``car bed'' CRSs that can be used to test the 
suppression system of a vehicle that has been certified as complying 
with S19 of FMVSS No. 208. Subpart B lists rear-facing infant CRSs that 
can be used by the agency to test the suppression system or the LRD 
capabilities of a vehicle that is certified as complying with S19 of 
FMVSS No. 208. Subpart C lists forward-facing toddler and convertible 
\3\ CRSs that can be used by the agency to test the suppression system 
or the LRD capabilities of a vehicle that has been certified as 
complying with S19 or S21 of FMVSS No. 208. Subpart D lists CRSs that 
are or can be used as a belt-positioning seat (commonly called belt-
positioning booster seats (BPBs)) (e.g., combination and 3-in-1 CRSs) 
and BPBs that can be used by the agency to test the suppression system 
or the LRD capabilities of a vehicle that has been certified as 
complying with S21 or S23 of FMVSS No. 208.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A convertible CRS can be used as is or ``converts'' between 
rear-facing and forward-facing use.
    \4\ ``Belt-positioning seat'' is defined in FMVSS No. 213 S4 as 
``a child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat 
to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II belt system on the child and 
that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural 
element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child's torso 
in a forward impact.'' A combination CRS can be used forward-facing 
or as a booster seat. A 3-in-1 CRS is a convertible CRS that can be 
used as a booster seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Development of Today's NPRM

    When deciding whether to update Appendix A-1 (68 FR 65188) NHTSA 
considers whether a particular CRS (from the appendix in effect and 
from the latest Ease of Use (EOU) data) has been a high-volume model, 
whether it has mass and dimensions that are representative of many CRSs 
on the market, whether its mass and dimensions represent outliers, and 
whether a variety of CRS manufacturers are represented in the appendix. 
The agency also assesses whether the assortment of CRSs in the appendix 
assures that NHTSA will be adequately testing the robustness of air bag 
automatic suppression systems under real world conditions.
    To develop today's NPRM, NHTSA conducted a systematic evaluation of 
the CRSs currently in Appendix A, and of data collected through the 
agency's EOU program.\5\ The agency assessed child restraint system 
physical dimensions and weight (mass) 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 \6\ 
and/or footprints \7\ markedly outside of those of the ``average'' CRS. 
In addition, the agency identified which CRSs had high production 
totals (based on confidential manufacturers' data) to determine which 
CRSs were likely to have the greatest market share (highest sales 
volume).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EOU program is a program in which NHTSA rates different 
usability aspects of CRSs currently on the market. It is part of the 
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), and is updated annually. The 
details of this data collection process are discussed in the 
November 2008 final rule (73 FR 66786). NHTSA primarily used EOU 
data collected in 2015, which included data on 53 different CRSs 
from 27 different manufacturers. EOU data from previous years or 
more recent years were used as needed if a specific type of CRS was 
not assessed in the 2015 program. In light of the availability of 
newer EOU data, references to the 2015 EOU data averages have been 
updated to reflect the 2019 EOU data averages.
    \6\ 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.
    \7\ The footprint on every CRS is unique. Some air bag 
suppression systems 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that, in choosing which CRSs to include in the updated 
appendix, the agency sought to ensure that advanced air bag systems 
would be designed and calibrated to perform satisfactorily when used 
with a wide range of CRSs. For example, because rear-facing CRSs with 
either low or high seat back heights can pose challenges for LRD 
systems, the agency sought to include rear-facing CRSs of varying seat 
back heights for LRD testing purposes. Similarly, because the agency 
believes that certain features like handles and sunshields on rear-
facing infant carrier CRSs can lead to false readings by vision-based 
sensors used in some advanced air bag systems, the agency includes 
rear-facing CRSs that have handles and sunshields in the appendix.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 being tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Changes

    After considering the factors discussed in the previous section of 
this preamble, NHTSA has tentatively decided there is a need to replace 
or update all the CRSs in Appendix A-1 of FMVSS No. 208. This includes 
replacing seventeen (17) existing CRSs with eighteen (18) new CRSs, and 
updating model identification information for two (2) existing CRSs. 
Tables 1-3 below summarize the proposed changes to Appendix A-1. The 
following sections will discuss our proposed replacements or updates, 
along with corresponding rationale for these proposals.

[[Page 68544]]

                   Table 1--Deletions to Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Model name              Appendix subpart      Model type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                DELETIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL GUARD ANGELRIDE #AA243FOF...  A                 Car Bed.
CENTURY SMART FIT 4543............  B                 Rear-Facing
                                                       Infant.
GRACO SNUGRIDE....................  B                 Rear-Facing
                                                       Infant.
GRACO INFANT 8457.................  B                 Rear-Facing
                                                       Infant.
COSCO ARRIVA 22-013 PAW & 22-999    B                 Rear-Facing
 WHO.                                                  Infant.
PEG PEREGO PRIMO VIAGGIO SIP        B                 Rear-Facing
 IMUN00US.                                             Infant.
COSCO TOURIVA 02519...............  C                 Convertible.
EVENFLO TRIBUTE V 379XXXX.........  C                 Convertible.
EVENFLO MEDALLION 254.............  C                 Convertible.
GRACO COMFORTSPORT................  C                 Convertible.
GRACO TODDLER SAFESEAT STEP 2.....  C                 Forward-Facing.
COSCO SUMMIT DELUXE HIGH BACK       C&D               Combination.
 BOOSTER 22-262.
COSCO HIGH BACK BOOSTER 22-209....  C&D               Combination.
EVENFLO GENERATIONS 352XXXX.......  C&D               Combination.
GRACO PLATINUM CARGO..............  C&D               Combination.
BRITAX ROADSTER 9004..............  D                 BPB.
EVENFLO RIGHT FIT 245.............  D                 BPB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Table 2--Updates to Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Model name              Appendix subpart      Model type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                UPDATING MODEL IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVENFLO DISCOVERY ADJUST RIGHT IS   B                 Rear-Facing
 NOW CALLED EVENFLO NURTURE #362---                    Infant.
 --.
BRITAX ROUNDABOUT E9L02XX IS NOW    C                 Convertible.
 THE BRITAX ALLEGIANCE #E9LR4-----.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Table 3--Additions to Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Model name              Appendix subpart      Model type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ADDITIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETY 1ST DREAMRIDE SE LATCH       A                 Car Bed.
 #IC238--.
CHICCO KEYFIT 30 #04061472----....  B                 Rear-Facing
                                                       Infant.
EVENFLO EMBRACE #315----..........  B                 Rear-Facing
                                                       Infant.
DOONA CAR SEAT & STROLLER.........  B                 Rear-Facing
                                                       Infant.
BRITAX B-SAFE 35 #E1A72--.........  B                 Rear-Facing
                                                       Infant.
CYBEX ATON 2......................  B                 Rear-Facing
                                                       Infant.
BRITAX MARATHON CLICKTIGHT #E1A38-- C                 Convertible.
 .
COSCO SCENERA NEXT #CC123--.......  C                 Convertible.
GRACO 4EVER ALL-IN-1..............  C                 3-in-1.
GRACO CONTENDER 65................  C                 Convertible.
CYBEX ETERNIS.....................  C&D               3-in-1.
SAFETY 1ST GROW AND GO #CC138--...  C&D               3-in-1.
EVENFLO CHASE #306----............  C&D               Combination.
COSCO FINALE #BC121--.............  C&D               Combination.
CHICCO MYFIT #04079783--0070......  C&D               Combination.
COSCO RISE #BC126--...............  D                 BPB.
GRACO BACKLESS TURBOBOOSTER.......  D                 BPB.
BRITAX GROW WITH YOU #E1C19--.....  D                 Combination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Deletions

    Our proposed deletions are based generally on which CRSs do not 
offer any unique characteristics and those that have not been in 
production for several years. If we propose to eliminate a CRS that 
offered a unique characteristic, we attempt to add a CRS that possesses 
the same unique characteristic or replace it with a CRS that offers an 
alternative unique characteristic. The quantitative details and 
photographs of the CRSs currently in Appendix A-1 are found in the 
Technical Assessment docketed in conjunction with the 2008 update.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Docket ID: NHTSA-2008-0168-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Deletion of Discontinued CRSs
    Appendix A-1 includes several carry-over CRSs that were also in 
Appendix A. These older CRS models and their corresponding sections are 
listed below:
 Subpart B
    [cir] Century Smart Fit 4543
    [cir] Graco Infant 8457
 Subpart C
    [cir] Cosco Touriva 02519

[[Page 68545]]

    [cir] Evenflo Medallion 254
 Subpart D
    [cir] Britax Roadster 9004
    [cir] Evenflo Right Fit 245

    The agency has confirmed that all of these CRSs have been out of 
production for many years and are not readily available for purchase. 
Given this, and the fact that most CRSs have an expiration date that is 
6 years from the date of manufacture, we believe the proposed deletion 
of these CRSs is warranted.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NHTSA does not require ``expiration dates'' on child 
restraint systems. CRS manufacturers developed the expiration date 
idea and label CRSs with an expiration date following industry 
practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these carry-over CRSs from Appendix A, we have 
identified CRSs in Appendix A-1 that have also been discontinued, 
making them difficult to acquire for testing purposes and reducing the 
likelihood they are in actual use by consumers. These CRSs and their 
corresponding subparts are listed below:

 Subpart A
    [cir] Angel Guard AngelRide AA243FOF
 Subpart B
    [cir] Cosco Arriva 22-013 PAW with the 22-999 WHO base
 Subpart C
    [cir] Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2
    [cir] Evenflo Generations #352
    [cir] Graco Platinum Cargo
 Subpart D
    [cir] Evenflo Generations #352
    [cir] Graco Platinum Cargo

    The Angel Guard AngelRide #AA2403FOF, is a car bed with a 3-point 
harness. This car bed is no longer in production; therefore, we propose 
deleting this car bed from Subpart A.
    The Cosco Arriva 22-013 PAW with the 22-999 WHO base is a rear-
facing infant CRS. The model number for this CRS was updated in 
Appendix A-1 in 2008 since the previous model number was no longer 
available. As explained in the 2008 final rule, this was a CRS that was 
mainly distributed to hospitals, health departments or other 
organizations. However, the 2008 final rule also noted that the 
manufacturer was contemplating phasing-out this CRS, and ultimately, it 
was discontinued. This seat was not considered an outlier, and we are 
proposing to add a new CRS with similar characteristics.
    The Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2 is a forward-facing only CRS with 
a 5-point safety harness. It was added with Appendix A-1 and it was 
among the heavier forward-facing CRSs on the market at that time. The 
rationale for including it in Appendix A-1 was its weight and its 
uniquely flat footprint. We are proposing to add heavy CRSs to Subpart 
C as well as CRSs with footprints that are flat (e.g., large contact 
surface area).
    The Evenflo Generations is a forward-facing-only combination CRS 
with a 5-point safety harness. At the time of the 2008 final rule, it 
was among the lighter forward-facing CRSs. It was included in Appendix 
A-1 because its footprint was unique and because it was lightweight for 
this CRS category. We are proposing to include a lightweight CRS in 
Subparts C and D to replace the Evenflo Generations.
    The Graco Platinum Cargo is a forward-facing-only combination CRS 
with a 5-point harness listed in both Subparts C and D of Appendix A-1. 
As part of the 2008 final rule, this CRS was a replacement for the 
Century Next Step 4920, and there are no remarkable features that would 
warrant finding a comparable replacement for it in this update.
    In light of the fact that these CRSs are discontinued and the fact 
that many years have passed since our last update, we propose deleting 
these CRSs to allow the inclusion of newer CRS models.
2. Deletion of the Graco Snugride #E9L02XX From Subpart B
    The Graco Snugride #E9L02XX is a rear-facing infant CRS in Subpart 
B of Appendix A-1, with a detachable base. The Graco Snugride was 
included in Appendix A-1 in the previous update because it was 
lightweight and had a high sales volume in the U.S.\11\ This specific 
model of the Graco Snugride is no longer in production. There is a 
newer model available, but as will be shown, there are newer 
lightweight infant CRSs that are also popular in the market now. As a 
result, we propose deleting this CRS from Subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The inclusion of lightweight and heavy rear-facing infant 
CRSs ensure that air bag suppression systems consider a wide range 
of weights when identifying these CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Deletion of the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio From Subpart B
    The Peg Perego Primo Viaggio is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a 
detachable base and a 5-point safety harness. It is heavier than the 
average rear-facing infant CRSs and has a relatively large base. This 
CRS was added in Appendix A-1 in 2008 because we concluded that this 
CRS is somewhat of an outlier in terms of its dimensions and unique 
footprint, and we believed that testing an air bag suppression system 
using this CRS would be a good measure of a system's robustness. This 
specific model of the Primo Viaggio is no longer in production. There 
is a newer model available, but as will be shown, there are heavier 
infant CRSs in the market now and we are proposing one of these with a 
similar footprint as the Primo Viaggio. As a result, we propose 
deleting this CRS from Subpart B.
4. Deletion of the Evenflo Tribute V #379XXXX From Subpart C
    The Evenflo Tribute V #379XXXX, is a convertible CRS with a 5-point 
harness. The design and characteristics of this CRS were not evaluated 
in the previous update because it was a replacement for a CRS listed in 
Appendix A. While this CRS is still under production with a different 
model number, we have been informed that it will be phased-out in the 
near future. We do not see a need to find an equivalent replacement for 
this CRS because it would be redundant with the Cosco Scenera Next, a 
proposed addition to Subpart C discussed in the additions section. 
Therefore, we propose deleting this CRS from Subpart C.
5. Deletion of the Graco ComfortSport From Subpart C
    The Graco ComfortSport is a convertible CRS with a 5-point harness. 
The design and characteristics of this CRS were not evaluated in the 
previous update because the mold for this CRS closely resembled a CRS 
listed in Appendix A. While this CRS is still in production we have 
identified other CRSs to add to the appendix with unique footprints and 
or dimensional characteristics. In order to properly assess the 
robustness of air bag systems we deem it necessary to delete this CRS 
in order to accommodate adding one of these newly identified CRSs.
6. Deletion of the Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster #22-262 From 
Subparts C and D
    The Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster #22-262 is a forward-
facing CRS with 5-point safety harness that can also be used as a BPB. 
The Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster was included in Appendix A-1 
because of its wide base and because it was a tall CRS. The agency has 
identified CRSs that are taller and wider that we are proposing be 
included in the revised appendix. While, this CRS is still being 
produced under a different model name (with cosmetic differences) we 
think it would be prudent to delete this CRS in order to include newer 
CRSs on the market that are taller and or have a wider base.

[[Page 68546]]

7. Deletion of the Cosco High Back Booster #22-209 From Sections C and 
D
    The Cosco High Back Booster #22-209 is a forward-facing only 
combination CRS with a 5-point harness in Subparts C and D of Appendix 
A-1. The 2008 final rule modified the identification information for 
this CRS to one that was more readily available at the time; therefore, 
no inclusion criteria was established for this CRS in the previous 
update. While this CRS is still in production it is available under a 
different model number. Rather than updating the model number again for 
this CRS, we are proposing that it be removed to accommodate other 
newer CRSs.

b. Updating Existing CRSs With Newer Models

1. Updating the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212 in Subpart B
    The Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212 is a rear-facing infant CRS 
with a detachable base, in Subpart B of Appendix A-1. This CRS was a 
carry-over from Appendix A. This CRS is now being manufactured under 
the model name Evenflo Nurture, but is equivalent \12\ to the Evenflo 
Discovery Adjust Right 212. The Evenflo Nurture #362----- \13\ weighs 
less than the average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program 
and is a rear-facing infant CRS with high sales volume in the U.S. We 
propose updating the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212 with its 
equivalent newer model the Evenflo Nurture #362-----.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Equivalent CRS models have no significant structural or 
physical differences.
    \13\ When selecting new CRSs for the appendix, the agency sought 
to provide, to the extent possible, generic model numbers. 
Therefore, the use of hyphens indicates digits in the model number 
that are not needed because they indicate changes in soft goods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Updating the Britax Roundabout #E9L02XX in Subpart C
    The Britax Roundabout #E9L02XX is a convertible CRS in Subpart C of 
Appendix A-1. The 2008 final rule modified the model number for this 
CRS to one that was more readily available at the time. Consequently, 
its dimensions and design were not taken into consideration in the 
previous appendix update. The Britax Roundabout #E9L02XX is no longer 
in production. Britax has replaced it with a newer version called the 
Britax Allegiance #E9LR4--. The Britax Roundabout had undergone changes 
to the design and mold since the last update and most recently it was 
renamed to the Britax Allegiance. The Britax Allegiance would not be 
considered an equivalent CRS to the Britax Roundabout #E9L02XX, but it 
would be equivalent to the Britax Roundabout G4.1 which was its 
predecessor. We propose updating to the newer Britax Allegiance because 
it is wider than the average footprint of convertible CRSs and its 
footprint is uniquely shaped.

c. Additions

    Other than the updating of older CRS models with newer CRS models 
discussed in the previous section, we are not proposing to maintain any 
of the current CRSs in the revised Appendix A-1. This section will 
discuss the proposed CRS additions that will comprise the revised 
Appendix A-1. (See docketed Technical Assessment for basic 
measurements, pictures, and statistical analysis of the proposed CRS 
additions.)
1. Addition of the Safety 1st Dreamride SE LATCH #IC238-- to Subpart A
    The Safety 1st Dreamride SE LATCH #IC238-- is an infant car bed, 
with a 3-point safety harness and handle bar. It is one of the only 
readily available car beds on the market; therefore, we propose its 
addition to Subpart A.
2. Addition of the Evenflo Embrace #315-- to Subpart B
    The Evenflo Embrace #315-- is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a 
detachable base, sunshield, and handle bar. It is lighter than the 
average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program with and 
without the base. This CRS captures a significant portion of the rear-
facing infant CRS market. This CRS also has a unique footprint 
configuration. We believe that testing an air bag suppression system 
using this CRS would be a good measure of a system's robustness because 
of the CRS's unique base footprint. Therefore, we propose its addition 
to Subpart B.
3. Addition of the Doona Car Seat & Stroller to Subpart B
    The Doona Car Seat & Stroller is a rear-facing infant CRS and 
stroller combo with a detachable base, a sunshield, and a handle bar. 
It is significantly heavier than the average weight, with and without 
the base, of rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. Its base 
is wider than the average for the rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 
EOU program. What is of particular interest about this CRS, for testing 
purposes, is the weight, the base width, and overall design of the car 
seat. This CRS also captures a significant portion of the rear-facing 
infant CRS market. Therefore, we propose its addition to Subpart B.
4. Addition of the Britax B-Safe 35 #E1A72-- to Subpart B
    The Britax B-Safe 35 #E1A72-- is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a 
detachable base, sunshield, and handle bar. It is heavier than the 
average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program with the base. 
It has a large base footprint compared to the average rear-facing 
infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU data. This CRS has a unique base footprint 
because of its flatness. This CRS captures a significant portion of the 
rear-facing infant CRS market. Because of its large flat base 
footprint, high sales volume, and weight, we believe this CRS can be 
considered a good replacement for the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio, which 
we are proposing to delete. Therefore, we propose its addition to 
Subpart B.
5. Addition of the Cybex Aton 2 #518000-- to Subpart B
    The Cybex Aton 2 #518000-- is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a 
detachable base, sunshield, and handle bar. It is heavier than the 
average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program with and 
without the base. Its base footprint is unique among rear-facing infant 
CRSs in the 2019 EOU data because of its shape and because it is 
designed to accommodate a load leg (see docketed Technical Assessment 
for pictures).
    The load leg is an optional installation feature for this CRS. 
Based on our analysis we believe that this CRS is somewhat of an 
outlier in terms of its weight and by having a unique base footprint. 
In addition, if the seat is installed without the steel-enforced load 
leg and it is stowed away we think this may challenge air bag 
suppression systems that use capacitive sensors. We believe that 
testing an air bag suppression system using this CRS would be a good 
measure of a system's robustness. Therefore, we propose its addition to 
Subpart B.
6. Addition of the Chicco KeyFit 30 #04061472-- to Subpart B
    The Chicco KeyFit 30 #04061472-- is a rear-facing infant CRS, with 
a detachable base, sunshield, and handle bar. It is lighter than the 
average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program with the base. 
This CRS captures a significant portion of the rear-facing infant CRS 
market. This CRS also has a unique footprint configuration. It has a 
wide base footprint compared to the average rear-facing infant CRSs in 
the 2019 EOU

[[Page 68547]]

data. We believe that testing an air bag suppression system using this 
CRS would be a good measure of a system's robustness because of the 
CRS's unique base footprint. Because of its high sales volume, wide 
base, and weight, we believe this CRS can be considered a good 
replacement for the Graco Snugride, which we are proposing to delete. 
Therefore, we propose its addition to Subpart B.
7. Addition of the Britax Marathon ClickTight #E1A38-- to Subpart C
    The Britax Marathon ClickTight #E1A38-- is a convertible CRS. It is 
significantly heavier than the convertibles in the 2019 EOU data. Its 
footprint is wider than the average for convertible CRSs in the 2019 
EOU program. This CRS also has a unique footprint configuration.
    This is a convertible CRS with high sales volume and Britax uses 
this same shell for other similar CRS models (e.g., Britax Advocate 
ClickTight and Britax Boulevard ClickTight), which increases this 
shell's market representation. Based on our analysis of this CRS it 
meets the inclusion criteria because it is a heavy CRS and has a wide 
unique footprint and our data indicates it captures a significant 
portion of the CRS market. Therefore, we propose adding it to Subpart 
C.
8. Addition of the Cosco Scenera Next #CC123-- to Subpart C
    The Cosco Scenera Next #CC123-- is a convertible CRS. It is the 
significantly lighter than the lightest convertible CRS in the 2019 EOU 
data. It has a smaller than average convertible footprint. This CRS 
also has a unique footprint that would have minimal surface area 
contact with the vehicle seat. In addition, this CRS captures a 
significant portion of the CRS market. Based on our findings we 
tentatively conclude these qualities warrant its addition to Subpart C.
9. Addition of the Graco 4Ever All-in-1 to Subpart C
    The Graco 4Ever All-in-1 is a 3-in-1 CRS. It is heavier than the 
average weight for 3-in-1 CRSs in the 2019 EOU data and heavier than 
the average convertible CRS in the 2019 EOU data. It has a wider than 
average footprint compared to the averages for convertible and 3-in-1 
CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a flat footprint. Based on 
its weight and footprint width and style we propose adding it to 
Subpart C.
10. Addition of the Graco Contender 65 to Subpart C
    The Graco Contender 65 is a convertible CRS. It was evaluated in 
the 2014 EOU program. It weighs less than the average weight of 
convertible CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It has a narrow and deep 
footprint compared to the average footprint of convertible CRSs in the 
2019 EOU program. The footprint has a unique shape and changes between 
the rear and forward-facing installation modes. Based on the dimensions 
of the footprint and its uniqueness we propose adding it to Subpart C.
11. Addition of the Cybex Eternis to Subparts C&D
    The Cybex Eternis is a 3-in-1 CRS. It is significantly heavier than 
the average weight of all 2019 EOU program forward-facing capable CRSs 
with a harness. This CRS is also much heavier than the average weight 
of BPBs in the 2019 EOU program. Its footprint is larger than the 
average footprint of 3-in-1 CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a 
unique footprint configuration. Based on its weight and footprint 
characteristics we propose adding it to Subparts C and D.
12. Addition of the Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138-- to Subparts C&D
    The Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138-- is a 3-in-1 CRS. It weighs less 
than the average forward-facing capable CRSs with a harness in the 2019 
EOU program. Its footprint width is narrower than the average forward-
facing capable CRS with a harness in the 2019 EOU program. It also has 
a unique footprint. Based on these evaluated characteristics we propose 
adding it to Subparts C and D.
13. Addition of the Evenflo Chase #306-- to Subparts C&D
    The Evenflo Chase #306-- is a combination CRS. It weighs less than 
the average weight of all 2019 EOU program forward-facing capable CRSs 
with a harness and BPBs. Its footprint is wider than the average 
footprint of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a 
unique footprint with limited seat contact surface area. Based on its 
footprint characteristics we propose adding it to Subparts C and D.
14. Addition of the Cosco Finale #BC121-- to Subparts C&D
    The Cosco Finale #BC121-- is a combination CRS. Its weight is 
lighter than the average weight of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU 
program and, as a BPB, its weight is lighter than the average weight of 
BPBs in the 2019 EOU program. The footprint is smaller than the average 
footprint of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a 
unique footprint shape. Based on its footprint characteristics we 
propose adding it to Subparts C and D.
15. Addition of the Chicco MyFit #04079783--0070 to Subparts C&D
    The Chicco MyFit #04079783--0070 is a combination CRS. It is 
slightly heavier than the average weight of combination CRSs in the 
2019 EOU program. Its footprint is slightly smaller than the average 
footprint of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It is a 
combination with high sales volume. Based on its weight, footprint 
size, and high sales volume we propose adding it to Subparts C and D.
16. Addition of the Cosco Rise Belt-Positioning Booster Seat #BC126-- 
to Subpart D
    The Cosco Rise Belt-Positioning Booster Seat #BC126-- is a backless 
BPB that was evaluated in the 2018 EOU program. Its weight is lighter 
than the average weight of backless BPBs in the 2019 EOU program. It is 
a BPB with high sales volume. It also has a unique footprint 
configuration. Based on its weight and high sales volume we propose 
adding it to Subpart D.
17. Addition of the Graco Backless TurboBooster to Subpart D
    The Graco Backless TurboBooster is a backless BPB. Its weight is 
lighter than the average weight of backless BPBs in the 2019 EOU 
program. Its footprint is wider than the average footprint of all BPBs 
in the 2019 EOU program. It is a BPB with high sales volume. It also 
has a unique footprint shape. Therefore, based on its footprint 
characteristics, weight, and high sales volume we propose adding it to 
Subpart D.
18. Addition of the Britax Grow with You #E1C19-- to Subpart D
    The Britax Grow with You #E1C19-- is a combination CRS that was 
evaluated in the 2018 EOU program. Its weight is heavier than the 
average weight of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. Its 
footprint is representative of the average footprint of all combination 
CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a flat footprint. Therefore, 
based on its footprint characteristics and weight we propose adding it 
to Subpart D.
19. Further Analysis of Proposed Rear-Facing CRS Additions
    As discussed in the earlier section titled ``Additional 
Considerations for Rear-Facing CRSs,'' we analyzed the

[[Page 68548]]

height of the proposed CRS additions to ensure that the appendix would 
have a wide range of rear-facing child restraint seat back heights. In 
the 2019 EOU program, the seat back heights for rear-facing infant and 
other rear-facing capable CRSs range from 14.875 inch (in.) to 26.75 
in.14 15 The proposed additions to Subpart B have seat back 
heights that range from 14.875 in. to 26.25 in. Furthermore, CRSs that 
are being added to Subpart C that have the capability of being 
installed in a rear-facing or forward-facing mode can also be used for 
testing in the rear-facing mode. We are proposing to add eight CRSs to 
Subpart C that are convertible between rear and forward-facing and 
their seat back heights in the rear-facing mode range from 18.375 in. 
to 19.75 in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The upper end of the spectrum represents convertible CRSs 
with inherently higher seat back heights in the rear-facing mode.
    \15\ The height measurement used for the rear-facing infant CRSs 
is the height with their base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the ``Additional Considerations for Rear-Facing CRSs'' 
section also discussed the need to include in Appendix A-1 rear-facing 
infant CRSs with sunshields and handle bars. All the proposed rear-
facing infant CRS additions have sunshields and handle bars.

V. Integration of New Appendix A-1 in the Regulatory Text

    NHTSA therefore proposes to remove the current Appendix A (which 
has been phased out), redesignate Appendix A-1 as Appendix A, and add 
the new list of CRSs described above as Appendix A-1. Designating the 
current CRS list ``Appendix A'' and the updated CRS list ``Appendix A-
1'' simplifies the implementation of this proposed rule because it 
allows NHTSA to use the phase-in schedule from the 2008 final rule 
(located in FMVSS No. 208, S14.8) by simply adjusting the mandatory 
compliance dates to correspond to this rulemaking.

VI. Proposed Compliance Dates and Phase-in Period

    NHTSA is proposing a phase-in of the requirement to test with the 
child restraints in the revised appendix. Under the phase-in, 50 
percent of vehicles manufactured on or after the first September 1st 
after the publication date of the final rule must be certified as 
meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with the CRSs on the revised Appendix 
A-1, and all vehicles manufactured on or after the second September 1st 
after the publication date of the final rule must be so certified.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As with all phase-ins, the agency is adopting a reporting 
and recordkeeping requirement to facilitate the agency's enforcement 
of the standard. The existing reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, set forth in 49 CFR part 585, subpart D, will be 
updated per the proposed compliance dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approach would provide manufacturers with sufficient lead time 
to purchase and implement the new CRSs in their compliance testing, and 
allow manufacturers to tie their certification to the automatic 
suppression requirements or LRD requirement with the introduction of a 
new model year, thereby reducing testing burden. In addition, this 
phase-in 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 in recognizing today's CRSs.
    As in the past, we are in support of early compliance with the 
appendix, i.e., a manufacturer may choose to certify more than 50 
percent of their vehicles in the first year of the phase-in. However, 
we note that, within the phase-in period manufacturers are not 
permitted to pick and choose among the CRSs in Appendix A and A-1 
within an individual vehicle certification. This restriction on 
voluntary early compliance is necessary for the agency to best use its 
resources in enforcing the phase-in requirements. Permitting 
manufacturers to selectively apply portions of Appendix A and A-1 for 
an individual vehicle would impede NHTSA's ability to conduct 
compliance testing because the agency would need to know how a 
manufacturer certified each individual CRS-related requirement in FMVSS 
No. 208 for the vehicle in question. Collecting this additional data 
would require additional agency time and enforcement resources, as well 
as a more expansive information collection process of manufacturers' 
compliance data than we believe is appropriate. We do not believe that 
the safety benefits of allowing manufacturers to pick and choose among 
the CRSs in the appendices for a single vehicle outweigh these 
additional burdens on the agency's enforcement of the advanced air bag 
requirements.

VII. Benefits and Costs Associated With the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule does not amend any of the FMVSS No. 208 
performance test requirements; it merely updates the list of CRSs NHTSA 
can use for advanced air bag performance compliance tests. The proposed 
update would mitigate the risk of injury to children in CRSs from air 
bags by testing with CRSs that are representative of those that are in 
production today. However, we cannot quantify the incremental benefits 
of testing with these new CRSs over those listed in the current 
Appendix A-1, due to a lack of field performance test data. We are not 
aware of any injuries to children caused by vehicle manufacturers using 
outdated (unrepresentative) CRSs to certify their advanced air bag 
systems. Relatedly, we also note that most children are seated in rear 
seats as passengers, so they are not exposed to advanced air bag 
systems. However, if there were a child in the front passenger seat, we 
believe that there is an unreasonable risk of injury associated with an 
advanced air bag system either not ``recognizing'' the CRS and/or not 
interacting with it in a low risk manner during deployment. Updating 
the CRSs used to assess the performance of advanced air bags mitigates 
that risk by enabling manufacturers to design advanced air bag systems 
to factor in the features and characteristics of the CRSs used today.
    Compliance with the proposal would result in a nominal cost to 
vehicle manufacturers for the purchase of the new CRSs. The agency 
estimates that a complete set of all the CRSs (20 CRSs) in the proposed 
new Appendix A-1 is $3,364 in 2020 dollars. However, the proposed rule 
not only adds 18 unique CRSs to the appendices, but also removes 17 
unique CRSs. Thus, in the absence of a large change in the price of a 
CRS on the list, the net change to the list is the addition of a unique 
CRS to the collection expected to be purchased by manufacturers. Since 
the $3,364 represents 20 CRSs, one of which is an incremental addition, 
1/20th of that price is the incremental cost due to the proposed rule. 
Thus, the proposed rule would create an increased cost of $168.20 per 
model, per year for manufacturers.
    Based on previous experience, we assume that after 10 years all 
CRSs in the appendix will no longer be in production and might require 
another update to Appendix A-1.\17\ Additionally, we estimate that each 
vehicle manufacturer will purchase 10 complete sets for each production 
line over that time or on average 1 complete set per year per line. 
Based on the 2017 Wards Automotive Yearbook,\18\ we estimate that there 
were a total of 248

[[Page 68549]]

production lines among the U.S. vehicle manufacturers in 2021. In other 
words, we expect the entire 248 production lines will be updated (to be 
in compliance with the proposed rule) in a period of 10 years. 
Therefore, the total 10 year cost to all vehicle manufacturers 
cumulatively would be $417,136 (=$168.20 x 248 x 10) over 10 years for 
those vehicle lines. Assuming an annual production of 16 million 
vehicles,\19\ there would be 160 million vehicles for the same period 
of 10 year. Thus, the per vehicle cost is $0.003 ($417,136/160 million) 
annually. We believe that these minor changes in the content of the 
appendix will not significantly impact the cost of compliance testing 
over manufacturer's current practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ We note that the frequency of past updates to the Appendix 
is not determinative of future updates. However, a shorter update 
period would likely mean fewer changes would be made.
    \18\ Published by WardsAuto, a division of Penton.
    \19\ This rulemaking would only affect vehicles with advanced 
air bags. We estimate that 16 million vehicles are produced annually 
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe this is a conservative estimate (i.e., an overestimate) 
for the following reasons. We acknowledge that some manufacturers may 
purchase fewer of some CRSs (if their vehicles are equipped with air 
bag suppression systems) or more of some CRSs (if they are equipped 
with LRD air bags).\20\ Therefore, we consider this a high estimate for 
the number of complete sets vehicle manufacturers will purchase, 
because, based on our experience, one set can be used to certify 
several vehicle models for several years. Vehicle manufacturers would 
also save an unquantified amount of time and money because they will no 
longer need to acquire the existing Appendix A-1 CRSs that are out of 
production. In addition, we believe vehicle manufacturers are testing 
their advanced air bag systems with CRSs that are not in the appendix, 
so it is possible that they already possess and have conducted testing 
with most of the proposed CRS additions, particularly the popular CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The lineup of CRSs that a manufacturer actually purchases 
will likely vary depending on what type of advanced air bag system 
the manufacturer chooses for its vehicles. For example, a 
manufacturer that chooses the LRD compliance option for all the 
child-sized dummies may purchase 10 sets of the CRSs in Subpart B, 3 
sets of the CRSs in Subpart C, and none of the CRSs in Subpart A and 
D (Subpart A and D CRSs are not used for LRD testing). 
Alternatively, a manufacturer that chooses the suppression option 
for all the child-sized dummies may purchase just one set of all the 
CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Docket website at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

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

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to the docket at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be 
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter 
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

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

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address 
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated 
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the 
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. 
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file 
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6

    We have considered the potential impact of this proposed rule under 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6 and have determined 
that it is nonsignificant. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. The costs 
and benefits of advanced air bags are discussed in the agency's Final 
Economic Assessment for the May 2000 final rule (Docket No. NHTSA-00-
7013). The cost and benefit analysis provided in that document would 
not be affected by this NPRM, since this NPRM only adjusts and updates 
the CRSs used in test procedures of that final rule.
    The agency estimates that compliance with the proposal would result 
in a nominal total annual cost to all vehicle manufacturers 
cumulatively of $417,136 (over ten years) for the purchase of the new 
CRSs. Assuming an annual production of 16 million vehicles (with a GVWR 
of 8,500 lb or less), the per vehicle cost is $0.003 annually for the 
purchase of the new CRSs. More information can be found in the 
``Benefits and Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule'' section above 
in this preamble. The minimal impacts of today's proposed amendment do 
not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation.

[[Page 68550]]

Executive Order 13771

    E.O. 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive 
department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or 
otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two 
existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental 
costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by 
law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules 
deemed significant under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' are subject to these requirements. This proposed 
rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this 
proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et 
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. 
I hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NPRM would affect 
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers, but 
the entities that qualify as small businesses would not be 
significantly affected by this rulemaking because they are already 
required to comply with the advanced air bag requirements. This 
proposed rule would not establish new requirements, but instead would 
only adjust and update the CRSs used in FMVSS No. 208's test procedures 
for advanced air bags. The small manufacturers would continue to 
certify their vehicles as meeting the advanced air bag requirements 
using the same methods and procedures they use today, only with more 
current CRSs.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. Today's proposed rule would 
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 
preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard 
for an aspect motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance a 
State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that same 
aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the Federal 
standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by 
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and 
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from 
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this 
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle 
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express 
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme 
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied 
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of 
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
    This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the 
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher 
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle 
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment 
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance 
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an 
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action 
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers 
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict 
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum 
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is 
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 
861 (2000).
    Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed 
rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The 
agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive 
effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will 
be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language 
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's 
proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, 
prescribes only a minimum safety standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not 
intend that this proposed rule preempt state tort law that would 
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers 
than that established by today's proposal. Establishment of a higher 
standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum 
standard proposed in this document. Without any conflict, there could 
not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of 
action.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid 
OMB control number. This proposed 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 for this proposed rule.
    These requirements and our estimates of the burden to vehicle 
manufacturers are as follows:
    NHTSA estimates there are 20 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 $42.71. 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

[[Page 68551]]

has complied with the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 during the phase-in 
of the proposed 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-1.

Executive Order 12988 (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 preemptive 
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further 
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative 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 NPRM would not 
result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.

Executive Order 13045

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

Executive Order 13211

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

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Rubber and rubber products.

49 CFR Part 585

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 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:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Section 571.208 by adding a sentence to the end of S1 and 
revising S14.8 appendix A, and appendix A-1 to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    S14.8 Vehicles manufactured on or after [DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 
1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and before [DATE OF SECOND 
SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]. Vehicles manufactured 
on or after [DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE] and before [DATE OF SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE], shall comply with S14.8.1 through S14.8.4. At any time 
during the production year ending August 31, [Year of first September 
1st after publication of final rule], 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 of this standard (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 
[DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the 
number of vehicles certified as complying with S19, S21, and S23 of 
this standard when using the child

[[Page 68552]]

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 
[Three years prior to DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE] and before [DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION 
OF FINAL RULE]; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production of vehicles subject to S19, S21, 
and S23 of this standard manufactured on or after [DATE OF FIRST 
SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and before [DATE OF 
SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
    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 [DATE OF THIRD SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE], vehicles manufactured by a final-stage manufacturer or 
alterer could be certified as complying with S19, S21, and S23 of this 
standard when using the child restraint systems specified in appendix A 
of this standard. Vehicles manufactured on or after [Date of third 
September 1st after publication of final rule] by these manufacturers 
must be certified as complying with S19, S21, and S23 when using the 
child restraint systems specified in appendix A-1.
    S14.8.5 Until [DATE OF THIRD SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE], 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 [Date of third September 1st after 
publication of final rule] by these manufacturers must be certified as 
complying with S19, S21, and S23 of this standard when using the child 
restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1 of this standard.
* * * * *

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

    This appendix A applies to vehicles manufactured before [DATE OF 
FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and to not more 
than 50 percent of a manufacturer's vehicles manufactured on or after 
[DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and 
before [DATE OF SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], 
as specified in S14.8 of this standard. This appendix does not apply to 
vehicles manufactured on or after [DATE OF SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
    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 S19 of this standard:

            Subpart A--Car Bed Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             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 S19 of this 
standard. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century Smart Fit 4543.................  December 1, 1999.
Cosco Arriva 22-013 PAW and base 22-999  September 25, 2007.
 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 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 S19 or S21 of this standard. (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 of this 
standard):

Subpart C--Forward-Facing and Convertible Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             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     September 25, 2007.
 Tribute 381xxxx.
Evenflo Medallion 254..................  December 1, 1999.
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster    September 25, 2007.
 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 r S23 of this standard:

[[Page 68553]]

Subpart D--Forward-Facing Child Restraints and Belt Positioning Seats of
                               Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             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    September 25, 2007.
 22-262.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A-1 to Sec.  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 [DATE OF FIRST 
SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and before [DATE OF 
SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], as specified in 
S14.8 of this standard. This appendix applies to all vehicles 
manufactured on or after [DATE OF SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
    A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after [Date of 
publication of final rule], 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 S19 of this standard:

Subpart A--Car Bed Child Restraints of Appendix A-1

Safety 1st Dreamride SE LATCH #IC238--

    B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems 
specified in the table below, manufactured on or after [Date of 
publication of final rule], 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 S19 of this standard. 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

Evenflo Embrace #315--
Chicco Keyfit 30 #04061472--
Doona Car Seat & Stroller
Britax B-Safe 35 #E1A72--
Cybex Aton 2
Evenflo Nurture #362--

    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 [Date of publication of final rule], 
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 S19 or S21 of this standard. (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 of this standard):

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

Britax Marathon ClickTight #E1A38--
Cosco Scenera Next #CC123--
Graco 4Ever All-in-1
Britax Allegiance # E9LR4--
Graco Contender 65
Cybex Eternis
Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138--
Evenflo Chase #306--
Cosco Finale #BC121--
Chicco MyFit #04079783--0070

    D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems and 
belt positioning seats, manufactured on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION 
OF FINAL RULE], 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 S21 or S23 
of this standard:

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

Chicco MyFit #04079783--0070
Cybex Eternis
Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138--
Evenflo Chase #306--
Cosco Finale #BC121--
Cosco Rise Belt-Positioning Booster Seat #BC126--
Graco Backless TurboBooster
Britax Grow with You #E1C19--
* * * * *

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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 1.95.

0
4. Revise sections 585.35 through 585.37 to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec.
585.35 Response to inquiries.
585.36 Reporting requirements.
585.37 Records.
* * * * *

Sec.  585.35  Response to inquiries.

    At any time during the production year ending [DATE OF SECOND 
AUGUST 31ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], 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 49 CFR 571.208 (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 [DATE OF SECOND AUGUST 31ST AFTER 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], each manufacturer shall submit a report to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its 
compliance with requirements of 49 CFR 571.208 (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 Sec.  585.2.
    (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.

[[Page 68554]]

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 [DATE OF FIFTH DECEMBER 31ST AFTER 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.8.
James C. Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-21476 Filed 10-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P