|
|---|
|
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Sophie Shulman Date: 22 August 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Safety
Topic: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67869-67887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0038]
RIN 2127-AL90
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' updating the child
restraint systems (CRSs) listed in the standard. NHTSA uses the CRSs 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 amendments will ensure
that the CRSs used by NHTSA to test advanced air bags are
representative of the current CRS market and will make it easier for
vehicle manufacturers and test laboratories to acquire CRSs for testing
purposes.
DATES:
Effective date: October 21, 2024.
Petition for reconsideration: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by October
7, 2024.
Compliance date: This final rule adopts a phase-in of the revised
appendix. The phase-in begins on September 1, 2025, when forty percent
of a manufacturer's applicable light vehicles must comply with the
revised appendix. By September 1, 2026, all applicable light vehicles
must comply with the revised appendix. We are also allowing optional
early compliance.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit 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 a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above. When you send a submission 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). Please see further
information in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this
preamble.
Privacy Act: 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
[[Page 67870]]
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call
Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-366-
6345). For legal issues, you may call Matthew Filpi, Office of Chief
Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992). Address: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Background on Air Bag Systems
B. Background on Advanced Air Bag Systems
C. Appendix A-1's Current Framework
III. Development of the 2020 NPRM
IV. Amendments to Appendices A and A-1 as Part of This Final Rule
Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
A. Deletion of the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right and Addition
of the Evenflo NurtureMax Into Subpart B
B. Addition of the Evenflo Litemax 35 #3305xxxxx Instead of the
Evenflo Embrace Into Subpart B
C. Addition of the Cybex Cloud Q With SensorSafe Instead of the
Cybex Aton 2 Into Subpart B
D. Addition of the Nuna Pipa RX With Pipa RELX Base Instead of
the Britax B-Safe 35 Into Subpart B
E. Deletion of the Britax Roundabout EL02XX and Addition of the
Nuna Rava #CS05116CVR Into Subpart C
F. Addition of the Britax Poplar #E1C93xx Instead of the Britax
Marathon ClickTight Into Subpart C
G. Addition of the Graco Contender Slim Instead of the Graco
Contender 65 Into Subpart C
H. Addition of the Evenflo Chase Plus #307xxxxx Instead of the
Evenflo Chase #306xxxxx Into Subparts C&D
I. Correction and Name Updates for 6 Proposed CRSs
V. Discussion of Comments to the NPRM
A. Summary of Comments
B. The CRSs Proposed in the NPRM
C. Availability of the Safety 1st Dreamride SE Latch #IC238
D. Frequency of Updates to the Appendix
E. Test Procedures
i. Testing With the CRABI Dummy
ii. Seat Belt Load Requirement
iii. Compliance Concerns With New Heavier CRSs
iv. Safety Need for Appendix Update
F. Comments on the Proposed Regulatory Text
G. Comments on the Compliance Date
VI. Discussion of Benefits and Costs Associated With the Final Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses
I. Executive Summary
This final rule amends FMVSS No. 208 to update the child restraint
systems (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 is
updating 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 finalized in this rule will replace all the CRSs
listed in appendix A-1. This final rule will allow a phase-in of the
amendment to give manufacturers reasonable time to certify their
advanced air bag systems using the new CRSs, with optional early
compliance permitted. To effectuate the phase-in using the regulatory
framework of FMVSS No. 208, this update will move the CRSs that are now
in appendix A-1 to appendix A and reference the new proposed CRSs in
appendix A-1.
This final rule will allow the agency to test advanced air bags
with CRSs that are more representative of the current CRS market.
Furthermore, since the last significant update to the appendix was in
2008, many CRS models listed in the current appendix have been
discontinued and are difficult and time-consuming to acquire. This
update to appendix A-1 will make it easier for vehicle manufacturers
and test laboratories to acquire the CRSs for testing purposes.
II. Background
A. Background on Air Bag Systems
NHTSA Has Required Air Bag Systems in Vehicles since the Late
1990s, but Early Air Bag Systems Risked Injury to Certain Populations.
To prevent or mitigate the risk of injuries or fatalities in frontal
crashes, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
Occupant crash protection,\1\ requires passenger vehicles to be
equipped with seat belts and frontal air bags. Although FMVSS No. 208
did not require frontal air bags on passenger cars until model year
(MY) 1998 and on multipurpose passenger vehicles and light trucks until
MY 1999, air bags were already in widespread use by the early 1990s.
These early-generation air bags were highly effective in protecting
occupants in frontal crashes but caused a number of injuries and
fatalities to certain occupants who were especially vulnerable to air
bag-related risks. Frontal air bags posed the largest threat to
occupants vulnerable to air bag-related risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 571.208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the introduction of air bag systems into vehicles, NHTSA has
maintained two consistent messages relating to children and air bag
systems. First, NHTSA has consistently recommended that children under
the age of 13 be seated in the back seat of vehicles. If consumers were
to always seat their children--whether positioned in a CRS or not--in
the back seats of their vehicles, air bags would pose very little risk
to children. Frontal air bags pose a bigger risk to children than side
curtain air bags, which pose very little threat to any occupant. Since
vehicle back seats are only equipped with side curtain air bags, the
risk of harm from air bags is significantly reduced for children
sitting in the back seat. However, there are scenarios when a child
needs to be seated in the front seat of a vehicle, and there are
scenarios where a caretaker may simply decide that the child will be
safe sitting in the front seat of a vehicle. To ensure that children
(and others who may be harmed by air bag systems) who are seated in the
front seat of vehicles are protected from air bag-related harm, NHTSA
has long maintained that the long-term solution was the development and
widespread implementation of advanced air bag systems that can sense
the weight and size of the occupant seated and adjust air bag
deployment to protect at-risk passengers. However, during the 1990s,
when air bag-related injuries and fatalities emerged as a safety
problem, advanced air bags were still a nascent technology.
To provide time for the development and dissemination of advanced
air bag systems into new vehicle production, and to address safety
concerns posed by pre-advanced air bag systems in vehicles already on
the road, NHTSA implemented an array of measures designed to protect
those passengers most susceptible to air bag-related injuries. Although
early air bag systems posed threats to several different populations, a
particular focus of these measures was to protect children from air
bag-related injuries and fatalities. Early data indicated that children
were at particularly significant risk of harm from air bags. The data
indicated that
[[Page 67871]]
children who were both seated in CRSs and seated without CRSs were at
risk of serious injury or death when seated in a position with a
frontal air bag. Because of the agency's significant concern for the
safety of children, NHTSA took multiple actions throughout the 1990s to
protect children from potential harm from air bags.
NHTSA's Recommendations Targeted at Behavioral Changes to Protect
Children from Air Bag Systems. First, the agency began providing CRS
recommendations informing caretakers how and where they should equip
child restraints in a vehicle. NHTSA's recommendation has always been
to place CRSs in the back seat of vehicles. There are different CRSs
for children of different ages, and NHTSA's recommendations change
based off of the child's age and size.\2\ It is important to note that
NHTSA recommends that the child be properly restrained in the back seat
of a vehicle for all these different stages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/car-seats-and-booster-seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA used several communications to further the agency's goal of
changing behavior to protect children from early air bag systems. For
example, in the early 1990s, the agency conducted testing that showed
that using a rear-facing child restraint in the front seat of a vehicle
where frontal air bags were active presented a significant risk to
child occupants. In December of 1991, the agency issued a Consumer
Advisory warning owners of rear-facing child restraints to not use such
devices in the front seat of a vehicle equipped with a passenger air
bag. Throughout the 1990s, NHTSA released several additional News
Releases on this issue. On October 27, 1995, after several fatalities
of children seated in air bag-equipped seating positions, NHTSA issued
a warning in a press release, titled ``SAFETY AGENCY ISSUES WARNING ON
AIR BAG DANGER TO CHILDREN.'' In the press release, the agency warned
that children sitting in air bag-equipped seating positions not
restrained by a seat belt could be seriously injured or killed by an
air bag. During the late 1990s, the agency also published several
articles in widely circulated journals and periodicals on the dangers
air bags pose to children. The agency has continued this education
campaign by publishing information on NHTSA's website on the dangers
air bags pose to children.
NHTSA Regulatory Action Taken to Protect Children from Early Air
Bag Systems. In addition to efforts to change caretaker behavior, NHTSA
has also taken regulatory action on this issue. In 1993, the agency
issued a final rule that, in part, required vehicles equipped with air
bags to include labels on sun visors providing specific cautions,
including a warning not to install rear-facing child seats in the front
passenger seat. The agency took further regulatory action in 1994, when
it required rear-facing child restraints manufactured on or after
August 15, 1994, to include a warning label against using the restraint
in any vehicle seating position equipped with a frontal air bag.
Finally, in 1995 and 1997, NHTSA took regulatory action targeted at
vehicle technology when the agency created a process for vehicle owners
to petition the agency to allow vehicle owners or lessees to have an
air bag on-off switch installed in their vehicle.\3\ Although on-off
switches have been an effective tool in protecting children from air
bag systems, as discussed above, the agency has consistently viewed
advanced air bag systems as the best protection for children seated in
air bag-equipped seating positions. Air bag on-off switches carry a
significant risk of misuse, as individuals who would typically benefit
from the protection of air bag systems may forget to turn a system back
on after turning it off for a child passenger. The agency believed the
advent of advanced air bag technology would essentially resolve this
misuse risk by being able to sense the occupant seated in an air bag-
equipped seat and activating or deactivating the system based on the
occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 62 FR 62406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background on Advanced Air Bag Systems
On May 12, 2000, NHTSA issued the Advanced Air Bag Rule \4\ to
reduce the frequency and severity of air bag-related injuries to small
adults and young children. To this end, the Advanced Air Bag Rule
amended FMVSS No. 208 to add new performance requirements for the front
passenger air bag in the presence of a child in a CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 65 FR 30680.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Advanced Air Bag rule was targeted at protecting all
individuals from potential harm from air bags, specific requirements
were included that were targeted at protecting children. The Advanced
Air Bag Rule allows manufacturers to provide child protection 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 deploys 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, manufacturers are required to
certify that their vehicles will comply with the advanced air bag
requirements when tested by NHTSA. FMVSS No. 208 sets out requirements
that advanced air bag systems must meet to comply with the standard
when tested with several different anthropomorphic test dummies. For
the purposes of advanced air bag suppression systems, the standard
outlines test procedures for testing with the 12-month-old CRABI dummy,
the 3-year-old child dummy, and the 6-year-old child dummy.\5\ The
standard allows NHTSA to test suppression systems with any of these
dummies and also includes procedures for testing the suppression
systems with these dummies equipped in CRSs to ensure suppression
systems can differentiate between an adult sitting in an air bag
equipped seat and a CRS restraining a child. For each of the test
procedures explaining how to test with each respective dummy, the
standard identifies which subpart in appendix A-1 to reference in
determining which CRSs to test with. For example, for the 3-year-old
dummy automatic suppression test, the standard instructs the tester
that the system must function with the dummy restrained in any child
restraint specified in sections C and D of appendix A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FMVSS No. 208 S20; S21; S23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of that test procedure in FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA listed the
CRSs that the agency would test within
[[Page 67872]]
appendix A of FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA intended for the CRSs listed in
appendix A to be representative of the array of available CRSs on the
market across many CRS manufacturers. To keep appendix A up to date,
NHTSA amended it in final rules issued in December 2001 \6\ and
November 2003 \7\ to replace certain CRSs that were no longer in
production and to add two LATCH-compatible CRSs, respectively.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 66 FR 65375.
\7\ 68 FR 65179.
\8\ FMVSS No. 225 requires certain vehicles produced after
September 1, 2002, to be equipped with lower anchorage systems to
ensure their proper location and strength for the effective securing
of child restraints. These systems are commonly referred to as Lower
Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two CRS-related appendices appear at the end of FMVSS No. 208:
appendix A and appendix A-1. NHTSA most recently updated appendix A in
a final rule issued in November 2008.\9\ As part of this final rule,
NHTSA created ``appendix A-1'' to facilitate phasing in the requirement
to certify vehicles with the updated CRSs.\10\ Appendices A and A-1
both still remain at the end of FMVSS No. 208, and, as discussed in
greater detail below, this final rule updates both appendices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 73 FR 66786.
\10\ The phase-in had the practical effect of permitting up to
50 percent of a manufacturer's carry-over vehicles to continue to
certify to the existing appendix for a period. A manufacturer had
the choice to have new model vehicles or carry-over vehicles of
established models, or both, comprise the 50 percent of vehicles
that can be phased in to the requirement to certify to the revised
appendix A. The ability to carry over a percentage of vehicles for a
year was designed to alleviate compliance burdens on manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Appendix A-1's Current Framework
The CRSs listed in appendix A-1 are broken up into four subparts.
Subpart A lists ``car bed'' CRSs that the agency can use 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
the agency can use 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
CRSs \11\ that the agency can use 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 that the
agency can use 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A convertible CRS is a type of CRS with an internal harness
to secure the child that can be used rear-facing and forward-facing.
It is used rear-facing with infants (or small toddlers if the CRS
weight recommendations allow it), and, forward-facing with older and
larger children. The CRS manufacturer instructs the consumer when to
turn the convertible CRS around to face forward, based on the weight
of the child (``turnaround'' weight).
\12\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's Self-Certification System and Appendix A-1. The Motor
Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacturing, selling, and importing
of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that do not comply with
the FMVSS.\13\ Accordingly, one of NHTSA's most important priorities is
ensuring that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment on the market
comply with the FMVSS. NHTSA can enforce compliance with the FMVSS
through statutorily created recall authority as well as by levying
civil penalties.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 49 U.S.C. 30112.
\14\ 49 U.S.C. 30120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether motor vehicle equipment complies with the
FMVSS, NHTSA must test that equipment. NHTSA publishes its test
procedures for each FMVSS so the public is aware of how NHTSA will
determine compliance with the relevant FMVSS. Although NHTSA publishes
its test procedures, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act makes clear that
manufacturers have the responsibility to certify their own motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS.\15\
This self-certification regime puts the onus on manufacturers to police
themselves when introducing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment
into the market, which means that although NHTSA publishes its own test
procedures, manufacturers are free to test their products for
compliance in other ways. In other words, NHTSA's test procedures are
publicly available as part of the FMVSS, but manufacturers are under no
obligation to compliance test using NHTSA's procedures--a
manufacturer's only obligation is to certify compliance, but it may do
so using its own testing methods. Appendix A-1 is part of the test
procedures of FMVSS No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 49 U.S.C. 30115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A-1 informs manufacturers which CRSs NHTSA will test with
when the agency compliance tests advanced air bag systems.
Manufacturers are under no obligation to test with the CRSs that NHTSA
tests with, meaning that appendix A-1 sets merely a floor for the CRSs
a manufacturer may test with. In fact, when the agency decided to
include appendix A-1 as part of FMVSS No. 208, it did so with the
expectation that manufacturers would test more than just the seats
included in the appendix, as a manufacturer's priority should be
ensuring that its advanced air bag systems function properly with all
CRSs on the market.
III. Development of the 2020 NPRM
On October 29, 2020, NHTSA published an NPRM to update appendix A-
1.\16\ The purpose of this proposed update was to ensure that the list
of seats included in appendix A-1 reflects the current CRS market. The
CRS market is constantly changing, with companies releasing new
versions of seats, new models of seats, and novel seat designs every
year. Because the appendix was last updated in 2008, many of the seats
in the appendix are no longer sold by manufacturers. This means that
both NHTSA and manufacturers have to find second-hand versions of many
of the seats listed in the current appendix for compliance testing.
Over time, it has become increasingly difficult to procure some of the
seats in the appendix. Furthermore, there are certain trends in the CRS
market that the current seats listed in the appendix do not account
for. For example, as discussed in more detail below, data indicate that
CRSs have become heavier overall. This change could pose a potential
issue for advanced air bag system sensing technology, as sensors may
not be able to detect the difference between an adult seated in an air
bag-equipped seat and a heavy child restraint with a child seated in
the restraint. Under the current list, NHTSA would not be testing many
of those heavier seats to ensure compliance with FMVSS No. 208. The
agency not only wanted to make the CRSs in the appendix easier to
procure, but also wanted to ensure that the seats included in the
appendix were a representative sample of the current CRS market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 85 FR 68541, ``Occupant crash protection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's Methodology in Choosing the Proposed CRSs. When deciding
which seats to replace and include in the proposed update to appendix
A-1, NHTSA considered whether a particular CRS had been a high-volume
model, whether it had mass and dimensions that are representative of
many CRSs on the market, whether its mass and
[[Page 67873]]
dimensions represented outliers, and whether a variety of CRS
manufacturers were represented in the appendix. The agency also
assessed whether the assortment of CRSs in the appendix ensured that
NHTSA would be adequately testing the robustness of air bag automatic
suppression systems under real world conditions. Additionally, NHTSA
conducted a systematic evaluation of the CRSs currently in appendix A,
and of data collected through the agency's Ease of Use (EOU)
program.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (see docketed Technical Assessment for data). In
looking for outliers, the agency considered CRSs with dimensions and
weight that were markedly outside of those of the ``average'' CRS. The
goal in identifying outliers was to ensure the updated appendix was
fully representative of the current CRS market. Additionally, the
agency identified which CRSs had high production totals (based on
confidential manufacturer data) to determine which CRSs were likely to
have the greatest market share.
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 included rear-facing CRSs that
have handles and sunshields in the appendix. Based on this methodology,
the agency proposed a series of deletions and additions to appendix A-1
in the 2020 NPRM. The agency also proposed updating two existing
entries in appendix A-1 to reflect model name changes. For detailed
information on the agency's proposed additions and deletions, please
reference the NPRM.
The comment period for the NPRM closed on December 28, 2020. Eight
comments (from six commenters) were received in response to the NPRM,
and a discussion of those comments with the agency's responses can be
found in section VI below.
IV. Amendments to Appendices A and A-1 as Part of This Final Rule
As described above, there are currently two appendices to FMVSS No.
208: appendices A and A-1. Appendix A currently lists the CRSs that
were adopted as part of the advanced air bag final rule in 2000.
Appendix A-1 currently lists the CRSs that were adopted as part of the
first appendix A update in 2008. In the 2008 final rule, the agency
decided to adopt a phase-in process for manufacturer compliance, and
keeping the CRSs from the advanced air bag rule as part of the standard
was necessary for the agency to continue compliance testing during the
phase-in period.
After considering the factors for decision-making discussed in the
previous section of this preamble, and after analyzing feedback from
both the public and CRS manufacturers, NHTSA is making three sets of
amendments to appendices A and A-1 as part of this final rule. First,
the agency is deleting all seats currently listed in appendix A from
the standard. Because the phase-in period for the 2008 update has long
since passed, there is no reason to keep the seats currently listed in
appendix A as part of the standard. Second, the agency is moving the
seats adopted as part of the 2008 appendix update (the current appendix
A-1) to appendix A. Third, and lastly, the agency is adding 20 new CRSs
to appendix A-1, which will constitute the update that the following
discussion focuses on.
To help clarify the table below, it is important to note that five
CRSs are listed in both subparts C and D for testing purposes, which is
why the ``TOTAL AFTER CHANGES TOTAL'' column reflects 25 in table 1
below. (In the current appendix A-1 four CRSs are listed in both
subparts C and D.) Table 1 shows the deletions and additions by subpart
in appendix A-1.
Table 1--Total Number of Changes to Appendix A-1 by Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A Subpart B Subpart C Subpart D Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current total.................................. 1 6 10 6 23
Additions...................................... 1 6 10 8 25
Deletions...................................... 1 6 10 6 23
Total after changes............................ 1 6 10 8 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are five CRSs listed in both subparts C and D for testing purposes, so there are only 20 CRSs total in
the appendix.
Tables 2 and 3 below provide the detailed make and model
information for NHTSA's deletions and additions to appendix A-1. There
are some differences between the list of deletions and additions
proposed in the NPRM and the deletions and additions adopted in this
final rule, and a detailed discussion of those changes and the
rationales behind those decisions can be found in the section below.
All the deletions proposed in the NPRM are being adopted in this final
rule, and the reasons for each deletion were discussed in detail in the
NPRM. Generally, the proposed deletions were based on CRSs that did not
offer any unique characteristics, CRSs that were produced in small
quantities, or CRSs that are no longer in production and have not been
for some time. Because the proposed deletions are all being adopted,
NHTSA recommends that interested members of the public reference the
NPRM for specific explanations of deletions for individual seats. There
are two additional deletions and additions being adopted in this final
rule. Because there are some differences between the proposed list of
additions and deletions in the NPRM and the additions and deletions
being adopted in this final rule, detailed explanations of those
changes can be found in the following section. As discussed above,
although this final rule says that the agency is ``deleting'' all seats
from the current appendix A-1, those CRSs will still appear in the
[[Page 67874]]
appendix to FMVSS No. 208, but they will appear under appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Certain seats listed in appendices A and A-1 contain a
series of ``x's'' at the end of their model names. These x's
represent specific soft material designs and colors for those seats.
Because soft material designs and colors do not have an impact on
FMVSS No. 208 air bag suppression compliance testing, the agency
does not specify soft material colors and designs in either appendix
A or A-1.
Table 2--Final Rule Adopted Deletions to Appendix A-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deletions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model name Appendix subpart Model type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 WHO.... B Rear-Facing Infant.
PEG PEREGO PRIMO VIAGGIO SIP IMUN00US... B Rear-Facing Infant.
EVENFLO DISCOVERY ADJUST RIGHT IS NOW B Rear-Facing Infant.
CALLED EVENFLO NURTURE #362xxxxx \18\.
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.
BRITAX ROUNDABOUT E9L02XX IS NOW THE C Convertible.
BRITAX ALLEGIANCE #E9LR4xx.
COSCO SUMMIT DELUXE HIGH BACK BOOSTER 22- C&D Combination.
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 3--Final Rule Adopted Additions to Appendix A-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deletions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model name Appendix subpart Model type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETY 1ST DREAMRIDE WITH LATCH A Car Bed.
#IC238xxx.
CHICCO KEYFIT 30 #04061472xxxxxx........ B Rear-Facing Infant.
EVENFLO LITEMAX #305xxxxx............... B Rear-Facing Infant.
DOONA CAR SEAT & STROLLER............... B Rear-Facing Infant.
NUNA PIPA RX WITH PIPA RELX BASE........ B Rear-Facing Infant.
CYBEX CLOUD Q WITH SENSORSAFE........... B Rear-Facing Infant.
EVENFLO NURTUREMAX #364xxxxx............ B Rear-Facing Infant.
BRITAX POPLAR #E1C93xx.................. C Convertible.
COSCO SCENERA NEXT #CC123xxx............ C Convertible.
NUNA RAVA #CS05116CVR................... C Convertible.
GRACO 4EVER DLX......................... C 3-in-1.
GRACO CONTENDER SLIM.................... C Convertible.
CYBEX ETERNIS S WITH SENSORSAFE......... C&D 3-in-1.
SAFETY 1ST GROW AND GO #CC138xxx........ C&D 3-in-1.
EVENFLO CHASE PLUS #307xxxxx............ C&D Combination.
COSCO FINALE #BC110xxx.................. C&D Combination.
CHICCO MYFIT #04079783--0070............ C&D Combination.
COSCO RISE #BC126xxx.................... D BPB.
GRACO TURBOBOOSTER BACKLESS BOOSTER SEAT D BPB.
BRITAX GROW WITH YOU CLICKTIGHT #E1C19xx D Combination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
There are several differences between the 2020 NPRM and this Final
Rule. Most notably, NHTSA decided to replace 6 of the 18 seats proposed
as additions to appendix A-1 in the NPRM and update the model names for
6 of the proposed CRS additions. The agency made these decisions based
on feedback from manufacturers and commenters. After publishing the
NPRM, NHTSA contacted the CRS manufacturers of the proposed added seats
to verify the production and design status of each proposed addition.
The agency followed this same process when NHTSA last updated appendix
A-1 in 2008.
In the explanations below for why certain CRSs have been chosen as
replacements for the proposed CRSs, the term ``footprint'' is used a
number of times. For clarification, when using the term ``footprint,''
the agency is referring to the general size of the CRS base that
contacts the seat cushion. The footprint on every CRS model is unique
and some air bag suppression systems have difficulty sensing CRSs with
certain footprints.
[[Page 67875]]
The NPRM also proposed an update to model identification
information for two seats: the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right and the
Britax Roundabout E9L02XX. After consulting with the manufacturers,
instead of updating the model information for these two seats, the
agency has decided to delete them from appendix A-1. Therefore, in
addition to the changes to 12 of the 18 proposed additions to appendix
A-1, NHTSA will be adding two different seats to replace the Evenflo
Discovery Adjust Right and the Britax Roundabout E9L02XX as part of
this Final Rule.
A detailed discussion of the rationales for each change between the
NPRM and Final Rule can be found in the subsections below.
A. Deletion of the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right and Addition of the
Evenflo NurtureMax Into Subpart B
As noted above, the NPRM proposed a model name update for the
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right to the Evenflo Nurture #362xxxxx. Based
on input from Evenflo, and as shown on their website, the Evenflo
Nurture model is no longer available. Because the goal of this Final
Rule is to update appendix A-1 to include CRSs that are representative
of today's CRS market and readily available, it would be illogical to
include a CRS that is not listed on a manufacturer's website. Instead
of keeping the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right/Nurture in appendix A-1,
this Final Rule will delete this CRS from subpart B, and will add the
Evenflo NurtureMax as a replacement rear-facing CRS in subpart B. The
Evenflo NurtureMax is not considered an equivalent replacement because
it does not have the same structural design as the Discovery Adjust
Right/Nurture, but it does have similar characteristics (e.g., the
Evenflo NurtureMax is a lightweight rear-facing CRS with a shorter than
average footprint and it is a popular CRS in the U.S.).
B. Addition of the Evenflo Litemax 35 #3305xxxxx Instead of the Evenflo
Embrace Into Subpart B
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Evenflo Embrace #315xxxxx, a
rear-facing infant seat that was described as lightweight and popular,
into subpart B. Based on feedback from the manufacturer and because the
Evenflo Embrace model is no longer listed as part of the lineup of
rear-facing CRSs on Evenflo's website, this model is no longer being
added to the appendix. After evaluating other available CRSs with
similar characteristics as the Evenflo Embrace the agency decided to
add the Evenflo Litemax, which is also a popular, lightweight, rear-
facing infant CRS with a long footprint.
C. Addition of the Cybex Cloud Q With SensorSafe Instead of the Cybex
Aton 2 Into Subpart B
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Cybex Aton 2, a rear-facing
infant seat, into subpart B. The NPRM described the Cybex Aton 2 as
being a heavy infant seat and having a unique footprint because of its
shape and because it is designed to accommodate a load leg. Due to
feedback from the manufacturer and because the Cybex Aton 2 is no
longer listed on Cybex's website, the agency is instead adding the
Cybex Cloud Q with SensorSafe,\19\ which has an essentially equivalent
base as the Cybex Aton 2 and is just slightly heavier, which is
acceptable since the Aton 2 was proposed as a heavy rear-facing CRS
(see docketed Technical Assessment for dimensions and pictures). The
Cybex Cloud Q also has a load leg like the Cybex Aton 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ SensorSafe is a technology Cybex has recently integrated
into the chest clip of its CRSs that provides alerts to a mobile app
about the child's safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Addition of the Nuna Pipa RX With Pipa RELX Base Instead of the
Britax B-Safe 35 Into Subpart B
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Britax B-Safe 35 #E1A72xx, a
rear-facing infant seat, into subpart B. The NPRM described it as being
heavy with a large footprint and as capturing a large portion of the
infant CRS market. Based on input from Britax, we decided against
including this CRS in the appendix. After evaluating other available
rear-facing infant CRSs on the market, we are adding the Nuna Pipa RX
with the Pipa RELX base, which has similar characteristics as the
Britax B-Safe 35. The Nuna Pipa RX with the Pipa RELX base is a heavy
rear-facing infant CRS, with a wide and long footprint.
E. Deletion of the Britax Roundabout EL02XX and Addition of the Nuna
Rava #CS05116CVR Into Subpart C
As noted above, the NPRM proposed a model name update for the
Britax Roundabout E9L02XX to reflect its new name, the Britax
Allegiance #E9LR4xx. Based on input from Britax, and because the Britax
Allegiance model is no longer listed on Britax's website as part of its
lineup of CRSs, it would be illogical to include a CRS that is no
longer part of Britax's CRS lineup. Instead of keeping the Britax
Roundabout E9L02XX/Allegiance #E9LR4xx in appendix A-1, this final rule
will delete this CRS from subpart C, and will add the Nuna Rava as a
replacement convertible CRS in subpart C. The Nuna Rava has similar
characteristics as the Britax Allegiance (e.g., it is a heavy
convertible CRS with a wide footprint; see the docketed Technical
Assessment for dimensions and pictures). Additionally, the Nuna Rava is
also a popular CRS.
F. Addition of the Britax Poplar #E1C93xx Instead of the Britax
Marathon ClickTight Into Subpart C
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Britax Marathon ClickTight
#E1A38xx, a convertible CRS, into subpart C. It was described as a
heavy convertible CRS with a wide footprint. Based on feedback from
Britax, we have decided against adding the proposed Marathon ClickTight
model and we are instead adding the Britax Poplar #E1C93xx into subpart
C. The manufacturer indicated that the Britax Poplar is dimensionally
similar to the Britax Marathon ClickTight, so the agency views it is as
a suitable alternative.
G. Addition of the Graco Contender Slim Instead of the Graco Contender
65 Into Subpart C
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Graco Contender 65, a
convertible CRS, into subpart C. The NPRM described it as a lighter
than average convertible CRS with a narrow and deep footprint. Based on
feedback from the manufacturer we have decided not to add the proposed
Contender model and the agency is instead adding the Graco Contender
Slim model, which is essentially an equivalent model to the Graco
Contender 65, into subpart C. Their footprint and dimensions are very
similar, and the Contender Slim is a lighter than average convertible
with a narrow footprint (see docketed Technical Assessment for
dimensions and pictures).
H. Addition of the Evenflo Chase Plus #307xxxxx Instead of the Evenflo
Chase #306xxxxx Into Subparts C and D
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Evenflo Chase #306xxxxx, a
combination CRS, into subparts C and D. After consulting with the
manufacturer, the agency has decided to instead add the Evenflo Chase
Plus. The manufacturer indicated that the Evenflo Chase Plus will be
more widely available than the Evenflo Chase, and that the CRSs are
nearly equivalent (see docketed Technical Assessment for dimensions and
pictures). It is also a popular combination CRS. Accordingly, the
agency is adding the Evenflo Chase Plus #307xxxxx, into subparts C and
D.
[[Page 67876]]
I. Correction and Name Updates for 6 Proposed CRSs
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Cybex Eternis, a 3-in-1 CRS,
into subparts C and D. Based on input from the CRS manufacturer, the
correct model name is the Cybex Eternis S with SensorSafe. Accordingly,
the agency has added the ``S'' designation to the name of the CRS as
well as the ``SensorSafe'' designation.
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Safety 1st Dreamride SE LATCH
#IC238xxx. Based on input from the manufacturer, the correct model name
is the Safety 1st Dreamride with LATCH #IC238xxx. Accordingly, the
agency has updated the name of this CRS as part of this final rule.
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Graco 4Ever All-in-1. Based
on input from the manufacturer, the correct model name is the Graco
4Ever DLX. Accordingly, the agency has updated the name of this CRS as
part of this final rule.
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Cosco Finale #BC121xxx. Based
on input from the manufacturer, the updated model name for this seat is
the Cosco Finale #BC110xxx. Accordingly, the agency has updated the
name of this CRS as part of this final rule.
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Graco Backless Turbobooster.
Based on input from the manufacturer, the correct model name is the
Graco Turbobooster Backless Booster Seat. Accordingly, the agency has
updated the name of this CRS as part of this final rule.
The NPRM proposed the addition of the Britax Grow with You
#E1C19xx. Based on input from the manufacturer, the correct model name
is the Britax Grow with You Clicktight #E1C19xx. Accordingly, the
agency has updated the name of this CRS as part of this final rule.
V. Discussion of Comments to the NPRM
A. Summary of Comments
There were eight comments submitted in response to the NPRM.\20\
Commenters touched on a variety of topics, including the CRSs proposed
in the NPRM, concerns about the frequency with which the agency updates
appendix A-1, test procedures, the proposed regulatory text, and
compliance dates. Some commenters also had concerns with the potential
costs and effort necessary for manufacturers to comply with testing
using the new CRSs proposed in the NPRM. The agency's summary of
comments and responses can be found in the subsections below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Alliance for Automotive Innovation submitted two sets
of supplemental comments (August 2021 and August 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The CRSs Proposed in the NPRM
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) submitted a
comment providing feedback on the CRSs NHTSA proposed in the NPRM.
Table 4 shows the feedback JPMA provided in its comment on specific
seats proposed in the NPRM, along with the agency's response to that
feedback.
Table 4--JPMA CRS Comments and NHTSA Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPMA suggested
NPRM proposed model update Agency response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Allegiance #E9LR4xx.. Indicated This CRS is being
incorrect replaced with a
model number different CRS due to
listed in the availability concerns.
NPRM;
suggested
using model
#E1C14.
Britax B-Safe 35 #E1A72xx... Indicated This CRS is being
listed model replaced with a
number will be different CRS due to
phased out in availability concerns.
early 2021.
Britax Grow with You Recommended NHTSA chose the
#E1C19xx. replacing with ClickTight model because
non-ClickTight it is the more popular
model version of the CRS.
#E1C144xx. NHTSA has added the
``ClickTight''
designation to the name
of the CRS.
Cosco Finale #BC121xx....... Indicated the NHTSA has confirmed with
Cosco Finale the manufacturer that
#BC110xx is the suggested model
more widely number #BC110xx is more
available than widely available. NHTSA
the proposed is replacing the
model number. proposed model with the
model JPMA recommended
as part of this final
rule.
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx. Indicated the The Evenflo Generations
listed model CRS was a proposed
is not deletion from the
produced, and appendix. Because the
recommended last update to the
replacing with appendix was in 2008,
Evenflo when NHTSA initiated
EveryKid this update, it
393xxxx. evaluated the CRS market
as a whole. Accordingly,
the CRSs proposed as
additions were not
limited to the same
brand of an existing
CRS. Instead of focusing
on selecting another
seat from the same
brand, the agency
focused on finding seats
with similar dimensions
and footprints. In this
case, NHTSA has decided
on a different
replacement seat.
Evenflo Medallion 254....... Indicated the The Evenflo Medallion CRS
listed model was a proposed deletion
is no longer from the appendix.
produced; Because the last update
recommended to the appendix was in
replacing with 2008, when NHTSA
Evenflo initiated this update,
SureRide it evaluated the CRS
371xxxx. market as a whole.
Accordingly, the CRSs
proposed as additions
were not limited to the
same brand of an
existing CRS. Instead of
focusing on selecting
another seat from the
same brand, the agency
focused on finding seats
with similar dimensions
and footprints. In this
case, NHTSA has decided
on a different
replacement seat.
Evenflo Right Fit 245....... Indicated the The Evenflo Right Fit CRS
listed model was a proposed deletion
is no longer from the appendix.
produced; Because the last update
recommended to the appendix was in
replacing with 2008, when NHTSA
Big Kid initiated this update,
365xxxx. it evaluated the CRS
market as a whole.
Accordingly, the CRSs
proposed as additions
were not limited to the
same brand of an
existing CRS. Instead of
focusing on selecting
another seat from the
same brand, the agency
focused on finding seats
with similar dimensions
and footprints. In this
case, NHTSA has decided
on a different
replacement seat.
Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx... Indicated the The Evenflo Tribute CRS
listed model was a proposed deletion
is no longer from the appendix.
produced; Because the last update
recommended to the appendix was in
replacing with 2008, when NHTSA
Evenflo initiated this update,
EveryKid it evaluated the CRS
381xxxx. market as a whole.
Accordingly, the CRSs
proposed as additions
were not limited to the
same brand of an
existing CRS. Instead of
focusing on selecting
another seat from the
same brand, the agency
focused on finding seats
with similar dimensions
and footprints. In this
case, NHTSA has decided
on a different
replacement seat.
[[Page 67877]]
Graco 4Ever All-in-1........ Indicated that NHTSA has confirmed this
the currently comment with the
listed name is manufacturer and did not
for the find any significant
original size and weight
version that differences between the
is only two versions. NHTSA is
available at adopting this
Costco; recommendation as part
recommended of this final rule. The
replacing with 4ever DLX 4-in-1 model
4ever DLX 4-in- will be reflected in the
1 model. updated appendix.
Graco Backless TurboBooster. Recommended This recommended edit is
correcting reflected in the
name to appendix being adopted
``Graco as part of this final
Turbobooster rule.
Backless
Booster Seat''.
Graco Contender 65.......... Recommended This CRS is being
correcting replaced with a
name to different CRS due to
``Graco availability concerns.
Contender 65
Convertible
Car Seat''.
Safety 1st Dreamride SE Recommended This recommended edit is
LATCH #IC238xxx. correcting reflected in the
name to appendix being adopted
``Safety 1st as part of this final
Dreamride with rule.
LATCH''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Availability of the Safety 1st Dreamride SE Latch #IC238
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (The Alliance) commented
specifically on NHTSA's proposed inclusion of the Safety 1st Dreamride
SE Latch #IC238. The Alliance argued that, because the Safety 1st
Dreamride SE Latch #IC238 is one of the only available infant car beds
on the market, NHTSA should create a formal means for automakers to
procure seats listed in appendix A-1.
Agency Response: NHTSA will not be creating a formal process to
acquire CRSs listed in appendix A-1 as part of this final rule. The
Alliance is correct that part of the agency's rationale in updating
appendix A-1 is to ensure manufacturers can more easily acquire the
CRSs listed in appendix A-1. As stated previously, it can be difficult
to acquire the CRSs currently listed in appendix A-1 because many of
the CRSs have been discontinued by manufacturers. This final rule will
resolve that issue by updating appendix A-1 to include CRSs currently
on the market. However, under the Safety Act, manufacturers are
required to self-certify their own motor vehicles and motor vehicle
parts.\21\ As part of this certification process, NHTSA strives to
ensure that manufacturers and the public are aware of how the agency
will test motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts for compliance with
the FMVSS. That being said, once NHTSA has made clear how it will test
a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, it is up to the manufacturer to
ensure its products comply. The agency believes it has significantly
improved the ease with which manufacturers can acquire the CRSs in
appendix A-1 by ensuring all CRSs in appendix A-1 are currently
available for purchase. In particular, although the Safety 1st
Dreamride SE Latch #IC238 is one of the only available infant car beds
on the market, it is available for purchase by the public.
Manufacturers do not need to rely on NHTSA to procure CRSs for them.
Accordingly, the agency believes that manufacturers should easily be
able to acquire the CRSs listed as part of this final rule. For the
reasons discussed above, NHTSA will not be creating a formal process
for manufacturers to acquire the CRSs listed in appendix A-1 as part of
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 49 U.S. C. 30115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Frequency of Updates to the Appendix
The Automotive Safety Council commented that it would like NHTSA to
adopt an official frequency with which the agency will update appendix
A-1 going forward. JPMA also mentioned in its comment that it would
appreciate more frequent updates to appendix A-1 from NHTSA. The
Alliance also commented on the need for a more reliable and consistent
manner of updating the appendix in its August 2023 supplemental
comments.
Agency Response: NHTSA will not be adopting a specific frequency
for updating appendix A-1 as part of this final rule. As discussed
earlier in this preamble as well as in the NPRM, the agency is aware
that a significant amount of time has passed since it last updated
appendix A-1 in 2008. The agency is aware that this time-lapse has
rendered appendix A-1 outdated, and many of the seats listed in
appendix A-1 are no longer in production, which makes it difficult for
manufacturers to acquire certain CRSs that NHTSA currently tests with.
One of NHTSA's goals with this final rule is to ensure manufacturers
can easily acquire the CRSs listed in appendix A-1. Another goal with
this final rule is to ensure the CRSs NHTSA uses to test for compliance
with FMVSS No. 208 are representative of the CRS market. The agency
believes that committing to a specific frequency to update appendix A-1
would not align with the ever-changing CRS market. Having the
discretion necessary to choose when to update appendix A-1 will allow
the agency to adapt as the CRS market adapts. Furthermore, committing
to a specified time frame for updating the appendix would likely
interfere with the agency's ability to manage its rulemaking resources
as it deems appropriate in light of other priorities and statutory
mandates and could hamper its ability to respond quickly to changes in
the CRS industry or air bag system designs. As such, NHTSA is not
adopting a specific frequency to update appendix A-1 as part of this
final rule.
E. Test Procedures
i. Testing With the CRABI Dummy
The Alliance indicated in its comment that it would like
clarification on test procedure installation for two forward-facing
CRSs proposed in the NPRM. Specifically, the Alliance requested that
NHTSA explain how it should test the Cosco Finale DX #BC121 and the
Chicco MyFit #04079783-0070 with the 12-month-old CRABI dummy when the
owner's manuals for both of those seats indicate that those CRSs are
designed to be used for children weighing more than the 12-month-old
CRABI dummy weighs. The Alliance reiterated its concerns in its August
2023 supplemental comments.
Agency Response: As discussed above, NHTSA is correcting the name
of the Cosco Finale DX #BC121 and is instead including the Cosco Finale
#BC110 as part of this final rule. According to the manufacturer, this
is merely a model name change and the seat design and intended use are
functionally the same, meaning the Alliance's comment still applies.
FMVSS No. 208, S19.2.1, specifies the use of the 12-month-old dummy for
suppression testing in any of the CRSs listed in the appendix subparts
C and D as appropriate. The term ``as appropriate'' is informative
here, as it makes clear that NHTSA will only suppression test a seat in
appendix A-1 subparts C and D with the 12-month-old dummy if it is
appropriate to do so with that seat. As discussed in the
[[Page 67878]]
background section above, FMVSS No. 208 sets out testing requirements
for advanced air bag systems using the 12-month-old CRABI dummy, the 3-
year-old child dummy, and the 6-year-old child dummy. For all seats
listed in appendix A-1, NHTSA will only test with the dummies that are
the appropriate size for each respective CRS according to the
manufacturer's instructions. Accordingly, because the Cosco Finale DX
#BC121 and the Chicco MyFit #04079783-0070 are CRSs that are designed
to restrain children who weigh more than the 12-month-old CRABI dummy,
NHTSA would not suppression test with the 12-month-old CRABI dummy for
those CRSs.
ii. Seat Belt Load Requirement
The Alliance requested clarification of the seat belt cinching
requirement listed in the FMVSS No. 208 test procedures. The Alliance
commented that for certain CRSs listed in the NPRM with belt tensioning
devices, ``it is possible to exceed the 134 N belt load by 80-106 N if
slack is removed from the belt prior to applying the child seat belt
tensioning mechanism.'' Furthermore, the Alliance indicated that it is
concerned that in the field, these belt tensioning mechanisms can
exceed the belt tension in the manufacturer's compliance testing, and,
in combination with heavier CRSs, could increase the risk of an
undesired air bag deployment (e.g., a child heavier than the dummy and
excessive belt load due to child seat belt tensioning systems could be
misclassified as a small adult occupant).
Agency Response: In response to this comment, NHTSA performed
further testing with CRSs proposed in the NPRM that have belt
tensioning mechanisms. The agency acknowledges that when these seats
are installed using the manufacturers' instructions, these seats
automatically tension past the maximum tension of 134 N described in
FMVSS No. 208 S20.2.1.5(c). The tension that these seats tension to
varies depending on the seat they are installed in as well as the
specific CRS. Accordingly, the agency acknowledges that if the
manufacturers' instructions for these seats are followed, it would
likely not be possible to test within the tension range outlined in
S20.2.1.5(c).
The agency has decided to include three seats with belt tensioning
systems as part of this final rule, despite the fact that they likely
cannot be installed by following the CRS manufacturers' instructions to
properly perform the test procedure outlined in S20.2.1.5(c). It is
important to note that, for the S20.2.1.5 test procedure, the standard
instructs the test conductor to ``secure the child restraint by
following, to the extent possible, the child restraint manufacturer's
instructions regarding proper installation . . .'' (emphasis added).
The agency is aware that there are some CRSs on the market that are
equipped with belt tensioning systems that may tension past the maximum
134 N outlined in S20.2.1.5. Accordingly, the agency believes it is
important to include these CRSs in appendix A, as they represent a
segment of the CRS market. Through NHTSA's research on belt tensioning
seats, the agency discovered that it is possible to reduce the tension
that the belt tensioning devices automatically ratchet to by
introducing extra belt webbing when installing the CRS on the vehicle
seat. To clarify how to test with these CRSs according to the
parameters outlined in S20.2.1.5(c), NHTSA will update its compliance
test procedures to instruct labs contracted with NHTSA to introduce
extra belt webbing when installing CRSs with belt tensioning devices.
The amount of extra webbing that needs to be introduced depends on the
CRS and the vehicle seat the CRS is installed on, so the agency will
include in the compliance test procedure a method for achieving the
required belt tension within the allowable range of zero to 134 N. The
agency believes this procedure is consistent with the requirements of
paragraph S20.2.1.5(c) because of the ``to the extent possible''
language used in that paragraph.
The agency decided to keep these CRSs with belt tensioning devices
as part of this final rule for multiple reasons. First, as discussed in
the NPRM and in the section above describing the difference between the
NPRM and the final rule, these seats (Cybex Cloud Q, Britax Poplar, and
Britax Grow With You ClickTight) represent important parts of the CRS
market when it comes to the characteristics of each CRS (e.g., weight,
footprint dimensions and designs). The agency believes that because
these seats are part of the CRS market and because they have
characteristics the agency wants to include in the appendix for testing
the effectiveness of the air bag suppression systems, these seats are
worth keeping as part of the amended appendix A-1. Second, these CRSs
equipped with belt tensioning devices were not available the last time
appendix A-1 was updated in 2008. It is possible that CRSs equipped
with belt tensioning devices will become more popular as time goes on.
Accordingly, the agency believes it is important to have CRSs equipped
with belt tensioning devices as part of appendix A. Although the test
procedure will test at a lower tension than these three CRSs typically
tension to, NHTSA believes that there is still a safety benefit to
testing these CRSs at a reduced tension. Specifically, if an advanced
air bag system fails to suppress at a tension in the zero to 134 N
range, it is likely that that advanced air bag system would also fail
the test at the tighter tension range that the belt tensioning device
would usually ratchet to. Accordingly, vehicle manufacturers will know
if their air bag suppression systems are compliant with the specific
weight and footprint of these CRSs, with the belt tensioned to the
appropriate test range. For the reasons listed above, the agency has
decided to keep the CRSs with belt tensioning devices as part of this
final rule and will update the compliance test procedures to instruct
labs on how to install the CRSs to the tension range outlined in
S20.2.1.5(c).
iii. Compliance Concerns With New Heavier CRSs
The Alliance requested that NHTSA reconsider the CRSs proposed in
the NPRM, due to concern about the overall shift to include heavier
CRSs in appendix A-1. They further stated that the NPRM did ``not
sufficiently address the potential for misclassification of occupants.
The size and weight of CRSs continue to grow, bringing them (combined
with their intended child occupants) closer to the size of small
adults. The narrowing of this gap creates an increasing risk of
misclassifications by vehicle occupant classification systems (OCS),
potentially leading to air bag inflation in instances when suppression
might be the safer outcome. Significant changes to the air bag systems
and related software will be required to address this matter, along
with changes to the vehicle instrument panels to accommodate the new
systems.''
The Alliance reiterated these concerns in one of its supplemental
comments. The Alliance argued that NHTSA's crash data demonstrates that
injury and fatality exposure rates are far greater for smaller stature
occupants in fatal crashes (i.e., over 13 years old) than for younger
children (i.e., under 6 years old) because most younger children are
seated in the back seat of vehicles.\22\ According to the Alliance,
this reflects that the largest group at risk of injury from frontal air
bags is smaller statured passengers, not passengers seated in CRSs. The
Alliance argued that this further supports their argument about
[[Page 67879]]
the potential harm of misclassification by OCSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ NHTSA recommends that children under the age of 13 should
be seat in the back seat of a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance did not provide actual vehicle compliance test data to
support their claims with regards to the performance of current systems
with the heavier CRSs. The Alliance suggested that ``NHTSA should
conduct further analysis to assess the regulatory impact on existing
vehicle designs when including CRS that are significantly above the
current threshold values established in appendix A-1, and the potential
impact this may have on overall occupant safety.'' Furthermore, the
Alliance argued that the weight of the heavier CRSs in combination with
the 6-year-old dummy would begin to overlap with the air bag activation
threshold leading to misclassification by the occupant detection
system.
Agency Response: The commenters are correct in their assessment
that the proposed CRSs in the appendix A-1 update will be heavier
overall than the previous version of the appendix, which was last
updated in 2008. Since then, the CRS market has evolved significantly.
NHTSA has conducted an analysis of recent Ease of Use program data
(2015-2020 yearly data) and found an increase in the yearly average
weight of boosters and CRSs that can be used as booster seats, which
can be seen in table 5 below.
Table 5--Average Weight of Booster Seats and Available CRS Models That
Can Be Used as Booster Seats
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Booster seats and CRSs that can be used as booster seats
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average weight
Year (lb) Count (n)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015.................................. 12.79 83
2016.................................. 12.89 89
2017.................................. 13.19 112
2018.................................. 14.18 124
2019.................................. 14.86 121
2020.................................. 14.92 120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the agency analyzed Ease of Use data as far back as
2012 to look at whether heavier CRSs were available at that time as
well. NHTSA found booster seats, and CRSs that can be used as booster
seats, that are heavier than or have a similar weight as the heavy CRSs
identified by the Alliance that have been available as far back as
2012. Examples of such CRSs can be seen in table 6.
Table 6--Heavy CRSs That Can Be Used as Booster Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year in ease of use program * Model name Type Weight (lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................... Baby Trend Fast Back...... Combination............... 28.3
2012.................................... Diono Radian RXT.......... 3-in-1.................... 27.1
2013.................................... Britax Pinnacle 90........ Combination............... 26.8
2014.................................... Diono Rainier............. 3-in-1.................... 28.0
2014.................................... Diono Pacifica............ 3-in-1.................... 27.8
2015.................................... Graco Smart Seat.......... 3-in-1.................... 34.4
2015.................................... Diono Olympia............. 3-in-1.................... 27.0
2016.................................... Britax Pinnacle Clicktight Combination............... 26.5
2018.................................... Graco Recline N Ride...... 3-in-1.................... 28.1
2018.................................... Maxi-Cosi Magellan........ 3-in-1.................... 26.6
2019.................................... Diono Rainier 2AXT........ 3-in-1.................... 29.9
2019.................................... Cybex Eternis............. 3-in-1.................... 27.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These boosters/CRSs were available in subsequent years and possibly previous years as well. We have only
identified the earliest year the CRS was in the Ease of Use program based on the range of years examined.
The Alliance requested that NHTSA include CRSs that are consistent
with the weights of the CRSs currently listed in the appendix. Although
the agency acknowledges that manufacturers may have to make design
changes to ensure their advanced air bag systems remain compliant with
FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA's top priority is passenger safety. As shown
above, there is a clear trend toward CRSs increasing in weight. To
ensure vehicle air bag suppression systems protect passengers, the
agency must ensure that the CRSs being used to test those systems are
representative of the current CRS market. Basing the weights of the
CRSs included in appendix A-1 off the CRS market in 2008 would not
reflect the CRSs that most current parents and caretakers use
currently. One of NHTSA's goals with this final rule is to make the
FMVSS No. 208 test procedures more representative of the real world,
and continuing to test with CRSs from 2008 would do the opposite.
Furthermore, since the inception of the Advance Air Bag Rule, the
agency has made clear that it is incumbent on vehicle manufacturers to
perform their due diligence by developing and testing their advanced
air bag systems with CRSs that are not limited to appendix A.\23\
Accordingly, it is reasonable to
[[Page 67880]]
assume that many manufacturers test their advanced air bag systems with
more CRSs beyond what is listed in appendix A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The Advanced Air Bag NPRM (63 FR 49958) required that
vehicles with suppression systems be tested with any CRS
``manufactured for sale in the United States between two years and
ten years prior to the date the model year carline of which the
vehicle is a part was (or will be) first offered for sale to a
consumer.'' This was done so ``that vehicle manufacturers take
account of the variety of different rear facing child restraints in
use as they design their systems.'' The supplemental NPRM (64 FR
60556) introduced appendix A, which was developed from a ``more
comprehensive list represent[ing] the majority of child restraints
currently on the market. That list was reduced, in part, by
eliminating similar restraint systems, e.g., restraints that are
sold as different models but which we believe provide the same
footprint.'' In the final rule (65 FR 30679) the agency further
explained its reasoning for the use of a list of CRSs in appendix A.
We stated that ``we do not believe that manufacturers should have
the option of certifying to only a limited number of the restraints
on the list. We do not believe that requiring compliance with seats
is excessive, given the importance of reliability in a suppression
system and the fact that the suppression tests are nondestructive.
Children sitting in the front seat will not receive the benefit of a
suppression system that does not recognize their presence in the
seat. If manufacturers believe their planned suppression technology
is insufficient to detect a wide variety of child restraints, they
will need to either improve or supplement that technology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, NHTSA initiated testing to investigate the Alliance's
concerns with the heavier CRSs. Thirteen vehicles were tested, and each
vehicle was tested with the CRSs in varying modes. The reports from
this testing will be placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
This research demonstrated that four of the 13 vehicles tested were
able to suppress the air bag with all the CRSs used for testing,
including the three heavier CRSs identified by the Alliance. The
passenger air bag activation weight threshold was measured for each
vehicle and the thresholds ranged from 55-85 lb. The weight threshold
for the four vehicles that suppressed the air bag for all the CRSs and
modes tested ranged from 56-77 lb. Further, 8 of the 13 vehicles
complied with the requirements with at least 2 of the 3 heavy CRSs
identified by the Alliance.
The agency's testing also revealed that the weight of the CRS does
not necessarily ultimately determine whether an air bag suppression
system activates. For instance, one of the tested vehicles (with an air
bag suppression system weight threshold of 73 lb) was able to meet the
suppression requirements with two of the three CRSs identified by the
Alliance (Cybex Eternis and Britax Grow With You), but did not comply
with the Chicco Myfit, which was the lightest of the three. This result
seemed to be related to how the Chicco MyFit's footprint loaded the
system's pressure sensitive bladder.
The agency testing has shown inconsistent performance for heavier
CRSs. However, it is clear from the results that systems can be
designed to correctly identify these CRSs and appropriately suppress
the air bag. The failure of some vehicles to suppress the air bag in
the presence of some of the CRSs is concerning and supports the need
for expeditious inclusion of heavier CRSs in the appendix.
iv. Safety Need for Appendix Update
The Alliance commented on the limited exposure to air bags for
children in CRSs since most children are placed in the rear seats and
because most children in the front passenger seat are restrained only
by seat belts. The Alliance further noted that ``the CRS list currently
defined in FMVSS 208 appendix A-1 has been successful in shaping design
countermeasures that support a positive downward trend in injuries and
fatalities for both child- and small-stature occupants seated in the
right-front seating position.''
Agency Response: NHTSA acknowledges and is encouraged by the
positive trend of seating children in the back seat. Nonetheless,
children are sometimes still restrained in a CRS in the front seat.
Furthermore, as discussed above, there is a clear market trend in CRSs
becoming heavier on average. This is at least in part due to the rise
of the all-in-one (also known as the 3-in-one) seat, which has become
popular with caregivers as they only have to purchase one seat for
their child, instead of buying new seats as their child grows.
Offerings in the all-in-one CRS category have significantly grown in
the CRS industry over the past several years. This is evident in the
list provided by American Academy of Pediatrics of available all-in-one
CRSs for 2023.\24\ Additionally, using the 2015-2020 Ease of Use data,
the agency looked at the number of all-in-one and combination CRSs and
found an increase in the number of these types of CRSs from 84 in 2015
to 120 in 2020. Because the market trends point to an overall increase
in CRS weight, NHTSA believes there is a critical safety need to have
heavier seats included as part of appendix A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://downloads.aap.org/HC/carseats/3-all-in-one-seats.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Comments on the Proposed Regulatory Text
In the NPRM, the agency proposed specific amendments to FMVSS No.
208, 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 as
appendix A-1.
The Alliance commented that, ``Comparing the NPRM which was
published on October 29, 2020, and the current standard, it seems that
`S21' has been accidentally deleted. As NHTSA's intention was to
redesignate `appendix A-1' of the current regulation as `appendix A' in
the October 29, 2020, NPRM, we believe the section numbers in subpart D
should be the same (i.e. should refer to `S21 or S23'). See FR page
68552, proposed FMVSS 208, section D of appendix A.'' The Alliance also
commented that ``[t]here appears to be an inconsistency in the proposed
regulations. Comparing proposed FMVSS 208 S14.8 vs. Part 585.35 and
Part 585.36, it seems that `first' in S14.8 should be `second.' ''
Agency Response: NHTSA concurs with these comments and has
corrected the regulatory text as part of this final rule. This
amendment is reflected in the adopted regulatory text below.
G. Comments on the Compliance Date
In the NPRM, the agency proposed that the compliance date for the
proposed requirements be phased in such that at least 50 percent of a
manufacturer's 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.
The Alliance expressed concerns with the proposed compliance date
in both its initial comment and one of its supplemental comments. In
its initial comment it argued that, due to the increased weight of the
CRSs being tested under the proposed update, manufacturers would have
to take a series of steps to ensure compliance. The Alliance wrote:
``Substantial testing will be required to assess the performance
of occupant classification systems with the heavier CRS installed.
Such testing may identify the need for air bag system design
changes. Changes to air bag size, shape, and inflators may
necessitate changes to instrument panel design. Suppression may no
longer be an option for some models with weight-based occupant
classification sensors. Those models may have to switch from
suppression to LRD approaches. In that case, the air bag module as
well as the instrument panel may also need to be re-engineered.
Significant changes may be required to accommodate the new systems.
Our initial study indicates that, after further consideration of
this matter by the affected parties and development of technical
solutions, additional lead-time will likely be needed to implement
these strategies, beyond what is proposed by the agency in the NPRM.
This scenario will require full frontal crash development which
typically takes more than two years.''
In its supplemental comment, the Alliance requested that the lead
time be extended by two years with an additional four-year phase-in to
allow for manufacturers' evaluation and implementation of design
changes to advanced air bag systems.
[[Page 67881]]
Agency Response: As discussed throughout this preamble, the CRS
market has been trending toward heavier CRSs for some time. Although
appendix A-1 provides manufacturers with a list of seats that NHTSA
will test to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 208, the agency made
it clear in the Advanced Air Bag Final Rule that manufacturers have a
responsibility to ensure that their advanced airbag systems suppress
deployment with all seats that are available on the CRS market.
Accordingly, if manufacturers have been paying attention to the CRS
market, they should have already begun the process of implementing
heavier CRSs into their test programs. Furthermore, delaying compliance
with the updated appendix would likely result in availability issues
for the CRSs being added to the appendix given the frequent change in
CRS model names, designs, or discontinuation of CRSs.
As part of NHTSA's own research, the agency acknowledges that some
advanced air bag systems will likely have to undergo adjustments to
comply with the updated appendix A-1. In response to commenters'
compliance concerns as well as the agency's testing, the agency has
decided that the phase-in of the revised appendix will be implemented
in two stages. To ease the burden on manufacturers, NHTSA is amending
the compliance phase-in to the following: Forty percent of all of a
manufacturer's light vehicles must comply with the revised appendix by
September 1, 2025, and all light vehicles must be fully compliant no
later than September 1, 2026. We are also allowing optional early
compliance. This change provides relief for an additional 10% of
vehicles in the first part of the phase-in. However, NHTSA does not
believe that an extension of the full compliance date beyond the second
part of the phase-in is warranted or advisable. Among other risks, any
additional delay raises the chances of inadvertently unsuppressed air
bag systems in vehicles where certain heavier CRSs have been placed in
the front seat. The agency encourages vehicle manufacturers to acquire
sufficient inventory of the CRSs when the final rule is published to
mitigate availability issues in the future.
VI. Discussion of Benefits and Costs Associated With the Final Rule
The NPRM discussed how this rule does not amend any of the FMVSS
No. 208 performance test requirements; it merely updates the list of
CRSs NHTSA may use for advanced air bag compliance tests. It further
explained that 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, but that updating the CRSs
used to assess the performance of advanced air bags addresses that
potential issue by enabling manufacturers to design advanced air bag
systems to factor in the features and characteristics of the CRSs used
today.
With regards to the costs associated with the rule, the NPRM stated
that the rule would result in a nominal cost to vehicle manufacturers
for the purchase of the new CRSs. It provided a conservative cost
estimate for the one additional CRS and then amortized this cost over
10 years and 16 million vehicles to get an annual per vehicle cost
estimate. Essentially, based on the cost of a complete set of all the
CRSs added, $3,364, it estimated the cost for the one additional CRS
being added as $168.20 (1/20th of total cost). Then, based on an
estimated 248 production lines and the assumption that vehicle
manufacturers will purchase 10 sets of CRSs, the NPRM estimated that
the total undiscounted 10-year cost to all vehicle manufacturers
cumulatively would be $417,136 ($168.20 x 248 x 10). Assuming an annual
production of 16 million vehicles, there would be 160 million vehicles
for the same time period (16 million x 10 years). Thus, the NPRM
provided an annual per-vehicle cost estimate of $0.0026 ($417,136/160
million).
These cost estimates have been updated for this final rule, given
the differences between the final rule and NPRM in terms of the new
CRSs being added. NHTSA observed an increased cost for most of the NPRM
proposed CRSs that were not affected in the final rule. The estimated
cost of a complete set of CRSs is now $4,322.40 (in 2023 dollars).
Therefore, the cost for the one additional CRS being added is $216.12.
The updated annual per vehicle cost is $0.0033 (($216.12 x 248 x 10)/
160 million).
The agency believes this figure is an overestimate for the
following reasons. NHTSA acknowledges 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).\25\ Therefore, we consider 10 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 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, CRSs can be
more prone to damage in LRD tests, in particular rear-facing CRSs,
due to the potential contact with the air bags, so manufacturers may
choose to purchase more sets of certain CRSs to meet their testing
needs. CRSs are more likely to be damaged in LRD tests because the
air bags always deploy in an LRD test, they just deploy with less
force. Conversely, CRSs are less likely to be damaged during
suppression system testing because if the suppression system
functions properly, the air bags do not deploy, and therefore cannot
do damage to the CRS. The majority of vehicle manufacturers choose
the suppression option for the child-sized dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its August 2023 supplemental comments, the Alliance also
commented on the increased burden of dealing with the aftermarket
acquisition process for CRSs that are no longer widely available.
Accordingly, the agency believes 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 through aftermarket sourcing. In addition, it is reasonable
to assume 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 some of the
proposed CRS additions, particularly the popular CRSs.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14904, Executive Order 13563,
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the potential impact of this final rule under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, Executive Order 13563,
DOT Order 2100.6A, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This final rule is not considered to be
significant under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule makes several changes to FMVSS No. 208;
specifically, the changes amend appendix A-1 of FMVSS No. 208, which
lists the child restraint systems NHTSA uses in compliance testing of
advanced air bag systems. Due to the changes in the CRSs proposed in
the NPRM versus the CRSs being adopted as part of this final rule, the
agency updated the costs in preparation for this final rule. The agency
estimates that compliance with the final rule would result in a nominal
total annual cost to all vehicle manufacturers cumulatively of $535,977
(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-
[[Page 67882]]
vehicle cost is $0.0033 annually for the purchase of the new CRSs. More
information can be found in the ``Discussion of Benefits and Costs
Associated with the Final Rule'' section above. The minimal impacts of
this final rule did not warrant the 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. The final rule
affects motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers, and
alterers, but the entities that qualify as small businesses would not
be significantly affected by this rulemaking because they are already
required to comply with the advanced air bag requirements. This final
rule 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.
Federalism
NHTSA has examined this final 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. This final 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 a 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 of 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.
NHTSA rules can also preempt State law is if complying with the
FMVSS would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State
tort law. 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 final
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 this final rule and finds that this
final rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety
standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this final rule
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by this final
rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law
would not conflict with the minimum standard finalized 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 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 procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.), a Federal agency must request
and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
before it collects certain information from the public and 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
rulemaking creates new information collection requirements for phase-in
reporting and record retention requirements.
In compliance with the requirements of the PRA, NHTSA is separately
publishing a notice requesting comment on NHTSA's intention to request
approval for a reinstatement with modification of a previously approved
information collection request. Specifically, NHTSA is requesting
reinstatement of the information collection request (ICR) with OMB
Control No. 2127-0535 and requesting that 49 CFR part 585 be renamed
``Phase-In Reporting Requirements.'' This ICR will be used to
consolidate all phase-in reporting requirements that are included in 49
CFR part 585 and was chosen because the OMB Control Number is currently
listed in 49 CFR part 509 as being associated with information
collections contained in part 585.
NHTSA's ICR describes the nature of the information collections and
their expected burden. The ICR is to request approval for two new
information collections for mandatory phase-in reporting for vehicle
manufacturers and related information collections.
With this final rule NHTSA is amending Federal Motor 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.
As part of the update to FMVSS No. 208, there will be a phase-in of
the requirements for testing with the new CRSs listed in appendix A-1.
This phase-in of the amendment gives vehicle manufacturers reasonable
time
[[Page 67883]]
to certify their advanced air bag systems using the new CRSs. As with
all phase-ins, the agency is adopting a reporting and recordkeeping
requirement to facilitate the agency's enforcement of the standard by
aiding NHTSA in determining whether a manufacturer has complied with
the phase-in requirements during the phase-in period. These
requirements are found in 49 CFR part 585, ``Phase-In Reporting
Requirements.'' The reporting and recordkeeping requirements require
that manufacturers submit an annual production report to NHTSA that
includes the number of vehicles manufactured in the current production
year and the production of complying vehicles and that they retain
records of compliance with the phase-in requirements for five years.
NHTSA estimates this collection will impact 22 manufacturers each year
and will have a total annual burden of approximately 22 hours and $0.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
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 annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing an NPRM or final rule
subject to the Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or
least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule.'' This final rule would not result in a Federal mandate that will
likely 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 annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995).
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under
Executive Order 12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that
the regulation, as appropriate: (1) specifies in clear language the
preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that
there is no requirement that an individual submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they
may file suit in court.
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.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs this agency to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. There are no voluntary
consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies
pertaining to this final rule.
Plain Language Requirement
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?
NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in promulgating this final rule. Please inform the agency if
you can suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language.
Regulatory 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. The RIN
contained in the heading at the beginning of this notice may be used to
find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy. Anyone can search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).
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.
For reasons stated in the preamble, NHTSA amends 49 CFR parts 571
and 585 as follows:
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. Section 571.208 is amended by revising S14.8, S14.8.1, S14.8.2,
S14.8.3, S14.8.4, S14.8.5 and appendices A and A-1 to read as follows:
[[Page 67884]]
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S14.8 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2025, and
before September 1, 2026. Vehicles manufactured on or after September
1, 2025, and before September 1, 2026, shall comply with S14.8.1
through S14.8.4 of this standard. At any time during the production
year ending August 31, 2026, 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 of this standard, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2025, the number of vehicles
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 shall be not less than 40 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
subject to S19, S21, and S23 of this standard manufactured on or after
September 1, 2022, and before September 1, 2025; or
(b) The manufacturer's production of vehicles subject to S19, S21,
and S23 of this standard manufactured on or after September 1, 2025,
and before September 1, 2026.
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 of this standard, a vehicle produced
by more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single
manufacturer as provided in S14.8.2(a) through (c) of this standard,
subject to S14.8.3 of this standard.
(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) of this standard.
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 of this standard, each vehicle that is
excluded from the requirement to test with child restraints listed in
appendix A or A-1 of this standard is not counted.
S14.8.4 Until September 1, 2027, vehicles manufactured by a final-
stage manufacturer or alterer may certify compliance with S19, S21, and
S23 of this standard when using the child restraint systems specified
in appendix A. Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2027, by
these manufacturers must be certified as complying with S19, S21, and
S23 when using the child restraint systems specified in appendix A-1 of
this standard.
S14.8.5 Until September 1, 2027, manufacturers selling fewer than
5,000 vehicles per year in the U.S. may certify their vehicles as
complying with S19, S21, and S23 of this standard when using the child
restraint systems specified in appendix A. Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2027, by these manufacturers must be certified as
complying with S19, S21, and S23 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
September 1, 2025, and to not more than 60 percent of a
manufacturer's vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2025,
and before September 1, 2026, as specified in S14.8 of this
standard. This appendix does not apply to vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2026.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Guard Angel Ride September 25, 2007.
XX2403XXX.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems
specified in the table in subpart B of this appendix, 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 September 25, 2007.
base 22-999 WHO.
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right December 1, 1999.
212.
Graco Infant 8457.............. December 1, 1999.
Graco Snugride................. September 25, 2007.
Peg Perego Primo Viaggio SIP September 25, 2007.
IMUN00US.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67885]]
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 September 25, 2007.
Evenflo Tribute 381xxxx.
Evenflo Medallion 254.......... December 1, 1999.
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back September 25, 2007.
Booster 22-262.
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx.... September 25, 2007.
Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2.. September 25, 2007.
Graco Platinum Cargo........... September 25, 2007.
Cosco High Back Booster 22-209. September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems
and belt positioning seats, manufactured on or after the date
listed, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration as test devices to test the suppression system of a
vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance with S21 or
S23 of this standard:
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 September 25, 2007.
Booster 22-262.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A-1 to Sec. 571.208--Selection of Child Restraint Systems
This appendix A-1 applies to not less than 40 percent of a
manufacturer's vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2025,
and before September 1, 2026, as specified in S14.8 of this
standard. This appendix applies to all vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2026.
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 with LATCH #IC238xxx.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems
specified in the table below, manufactured on or after August 22,
2024, 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 Litemax #305xxxxx.
Chicco Keyfit 30 #04061472xxxxxx.
Doona Car Seat & Stroller.
Nuna Pipa RX with Pipa RELX base.
Cybex Cloud Q with SensorSafe.
Evenflo NurtureMax #364xxxxx.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 August 22, 2024, 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 Poplar #E1C93xx.
Cosco Scenera Next #CC123xxx.
Graco 4Ever DLX.
Nuna Rava #CS05116CVR.
Graco Contender Slim.
Cybex Eternis S with SensorSafe.
Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138xxx.
Evenflo Chase Plus #307xxxxx.
Cosco Finale #BC110xxx.
Chicco MyFit #04079783--0070.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems
and belt positioning seats, manufactured on or after August 22,
2024, 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 S with SensorSafe.
Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138xxx.
Evenflo Chase Plus #307xxxxx.
Cosco Finale #BC110xxx.
Cosco Rise #BC126xxx.
Graco TurboBooster Backless Booster Seat.
Britax Grow with You ClickTight #E1C19xx.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67886]]
Figure A1 to Appendix A and Appendix A-1 to Sec. 571.208: Loading Bar
Foot Detail
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU24.002
Figure A2 to Appendix A and Appendix A-1 to Sec. 571.208: Loading Bar
Installation
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU24.003
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. Sections 585.35 through 585.37 are revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec.
585.35 Response to inquiries.
585.36 Reporting requirements.
[[Page 67887]]
585.37 Records.
* * * * *
Sec. 585.35 Response to inquiries.
At any time during the production year ending August 31, 2026, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make,
model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as
complying with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when using the
child restraint systems specified in appendix A-1 of that standard (49
CFR 571.208). The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a
certified vehicle is irrevocable.
Sec. 585.36 Reporting requirements.
(a) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end
of the production year ending August 31, 2026, each manufacturer shall
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
concerning its compliance with requirements of Standard No. 208 when
using the child restraint systems specified in appendix A-1 of that
standard (49 CFR 571.208) 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. 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.
(1) 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 (49 CFR 571.208).
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 585.37 Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec. 585.36 until December 31, 2029.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.5.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-18114 Filed 8-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P