Download:
pdf |
pdfFederal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
to an unmet vehicle safety need, as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
Based on the above reasons, NHTSA
believes that the petitioner has failed to
demonstrate a clear need for safety
attributable to summer-specification or
allegedly non-compliant winterspecification windshield washer fluid.
While we agree that failure of the
windshield washing system could result
in reduced windshield visibility, the
petitioner did not provide evidence
demonstrating the scope of this
potential safety problem or whether
such a problem could be attributable to
winter-specification windshield washer
fluid, nor is it clearly established by
available safety data. Accordingly,
NHTSA has concluded that the
petitioner has not shown an unmet
safety need that would justify the
mandate to use of year-round
standardized winter-specific windshield
washer fluid, as required by 49 U.S.C.
30111(a). NHTSA notes that it will not
hesitate to exercise its defect and recall
authority should any windshield
washing system fail and create an
unreasonable risk to safety.3
B. The Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate
That a Standardized WinterSpecification Windshield Washer Fluid
Would Effectively Address an Unmet
Motor Vehicle Safety Need
Even if an unmet motor vehicle safety
need exists, the Safety Act requires that
an FMVSS meet the motor vehicle safety
need.4 The petitioner states that reduced
or zero windshield visibility can cause
accidents resulting in bodily injury and
fatalities. The petitioner then suggests
that an easily implemented solution to
solve this problem is the elimination of
summer-specification windshield
washer fluid and standardization of
winter-specification windshield washer
fluid. However, the petitioner’s primary
support for this suggestion is a personal
anecdotal description of an incident in
which the petitioner states his
windshield washer fluid froze in cold
temperatures, obscuring his
windshield’s visibility and requiring
him to pull over and wait for his
windshield defroster system to thaw the
frozen washer fluid. The petitioner
states his belief that this incident
occurred because summer-specification
windshield washer fluid was added to
his car’s washer fluid reservoir in a
warmer state and froze after he returned
to a colder climate. Other than this
personal anecdote, the petitioner
provides no supporting data or research
linking frozen windshield washer fluid
3 49
U.S.C. 30118.
4 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
to crashes or fatalities to demonstrate
that banning summer-specification
windshield washer fluid and mandating
standardized winter-specification
windshield washer fluid would
effectively prevent fatalities or injuries.
Further, the petitioner provides no
supporting data substantiating the scope
of the alleged safety issue, nor any
evidence that the proposed solution
would remedy the alleged safety issue.
Absent such supporting data or
evidence, NHTSA cannot find that
requiring year-round standardized
winter-specification windshield fluid
would effectively prevent fatalities and
injuries.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons NHTSA is
denying the petition based on the lack
of sufficient information and evidence
discussed above. The petitioner has not
demonstrated a safety need and a
solution that would justify NHTSA
reallocating its limited resources from
rulemakings that are mandated by
Congress and others that have a
demonstrated safety need with solutions
available to resolve those needs.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.5, and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2024–18714 Filed 8–21–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
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
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67869
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
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
67870
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit
https://www.transportation.gov/
individuals/privacy/privacy-act-systemrecords-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:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 timeconsuming 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
1 49
PO 00000
CFR 571.208.
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 bagrelated risks.
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
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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 rearfacing 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 bagequipped 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
2 https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/car-seatsand-booster-seats.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 bagequipped seat and activating or
deactivating the system based on the
occupant.
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.
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
3 62
4 65
PO 00000
FR 62406.
FR 30680.
Frm 00043
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 childsized 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.
As part of that test procedure in
FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA listed the
CRSs that the agency would test within
5 FMVSS
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67871
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
No. 208 S20; S21; S23.
22AUR1
67872
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
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.
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
6 66
FR 65375.
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).
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.
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).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
7 68
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
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
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.
Appendix A–1 informs manufacturers
which CRSs NHTSA will test with when
the agency compliance tests advanced
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.
13 49 U.S.C. 30112.
14 49 U.S.C. 30120.
15 49 U.S.C. 30115.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
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
16 85
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
FR 68541, ‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’
22AUR1
67873
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
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
Current total .............................................................................................
Additions ..................................................................................................
Deletions ..................................................................................................
Total after changes ..................................................................................
Subpart B
1
1
1
1
I
I
Subpart C
6
6
6
6
10
10
10
10
I
Subpart D
I
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
** There are five CRSs listed in both subparts C and D for testing purposes, so there are only 20 CRSs total in the appendix.
6
8
6
8
Total
I
23
25
23
25
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
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
67874
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
appendix to FMVSS No. 208, but they
will appear under appendix A.
TABLE 2—FINAL RULE ADOPTED DELETIONS TO APPENDIX A–1
Deletions
Appendix
subpart
Model name
ANGEL GUARD ANGELRIDE #AA243FOF .............................................................................................
CENTURY SMART FIT 4543 ....................................................................................................................
GRACO SNUGRIDE ..................................................................................................................................
GRACO INFANT 8457 ..............................................................................................................................
COSCO ARRIVA 22–013 PAW & 22–999 WHO ......................................................................................
PEG PEREGO PRIMO VIAGGIO SIP IMUN00US ...................................................................................
EVENFLO DISCOVERY ADJUST RIGHT IS NOW CALLED EVENFLO NURTURE #362xxxxx 18 ........
COSCO TOURIVA 02519 .........................................................................................................................
EVENFLO TRIBUTE V 379XXXX .............................................................................................................
EVENFLO MEDALLION 254 .....................................................................................................................
GRACO COMFORTSPORT ......................................................................................................................
GRACO TODDLER SAFESEAT STEP 2 ..................................................................................................
BRITAX ROUNDABOUT E9L02XX IS NOW THE BRITAX ALLEGIANCE #E9LR4xx ............................
COSCO SUMMIT DELUXE HIGH BACK BOOSTER 22–262 ..................................................................
COSCO HIGH BACK BOOSTER 22–209 .................................................................................................
EVENFLO GENERATIONS 352XXXX ......................................................................................................
GRACO PLATINUM CARGO ....................................................................................................................
BRITAX ROADSTER 9004 ........................................................................................................................
EVENFLO RIGHT FIT 245 ........................................................................................................................
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C&D
C&D
C&D
C&D
D
D
Model type
Car Bed.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Convertible.
Convertible.
Convertible.
Convertible.
Forward-Facing.
Convertible.
Combination.
Combination.
Combination.
Combination.
BPB.
BPB.
TABLE 3—FINAL RULE ADOPTED ADDITIONS TO APPENDIX A–1
Deletions
Appendix
subpart
Model name
SAFETY 1ST DREAMRIDE WITH LATCH #IC238xxx .............................................................................
CHICCO KEYFIT 30 #04061472xxxxxx ....................................................................................................
EVENFLO LITEMAX #305xxxxx ...............................................................................................................
DOONA CAR SEAT & STROLLER ...........................................................................................................
NUNA PIPA RX WITH PIPA RELX BASE ................................................................................................
CYBEX CLOUD Q WITH SENSORSAFE .................................................................................................
EVENFLO NURTUREMAX #364xxxxx .....................................................................................................
BRITAX POPLAR #E1C93xx ....................................................................................................................
COSCO SCENERA NEXT #CC123xxx .....................................................................................................
NUNA RAVA #CS05116CVR ....................................................................................................................
GRACO 4EVER DLX .................................................................................................................................
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 ..........................................................................................................
COSCO RISE #BC126xxx .........................................................................................................................
GRACO TURBOBOOSTER BACKLESS BOOSTER SEAT .....................................................................
BRITAX GROW WITH YOU CLICKTIGHT #E1C19xx .............................................................................
Car Bed.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Rear-Facing Infant.
Convertible.
Convertible.
Convertible.
3-in-1.
Convertible.
3-in-1.
3-in-1.
Combination.
Combination.
Combination.
BPB.
BPB.
Combination.
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.
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.
Differences Between the NPRM and the
Final Rule
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C&D
C&D
C&D
C&D
C&D
D
D
D
Model type
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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 rearfacing 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 rearfacing 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 rearfacing CRS (see docketed Technical
Assessment for dimensions and
pictures). The Cybex Cloud Q also has
a load leg like the Cybex Aton 2.
D. Addition of the Nuna Pipa RX With
Pipa RELX Base Instead of the Britax BSafe 35 Into Subpart B
The NPRM proposed the addition of
the Britax B-Safe 35 #E1A72xx, a rearfacing 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 BSafe 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67875
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.
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
67876
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
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.
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.
A. Summary of Comments
There were eight comments submitted
in response to the NPRM.20 Commenters
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
TABLE 4—JPMA CRS COMMENTS AND NHTSA RESPONSES
NPRM proposed
model
JPMA suggested update
Britax Allegiance
#E9LR4xx.
Britax B-Safe 35
#E1A72xx.
Britax Grow with You
#E1C19xx.
Cosco Finale
#BC121xx.
Indicated incorrect model number listed in the
NPRM; suggested using model #E1C14.
Indicated listed model number will be phased out in
early 2021.
Recommended replacing with non-ClickTight model
#E1C144xx.
Indicated the Cosco Finale #BC110xx is more widely available than the proposed model number.
Evenflo Generations
352xxxx.
Indicated the listed model is not produced, and recommended replacing with Evenflo EveryKid
393xxxx.
Evenflo Medallion 254
Indicated the listed model is no longer produced;
recommended replacing with Evenflo SureRide
371xxxx.
Evenflo Right Fit 245
Indicated the listed model is no longer produced;
recommended replacing with Big Kid 365xxxx.
Evenflo Tribute V
379xxxx.
Indicated the listed model is no longer produced;
recommended replacing with Evenflo EveryKid
381xxxx.
Agency response
This CRS is being replaced with a different CRS due to availability concerns.
This CRS is being replaced with a different CRS due to availability concerns.
NHTSA chose the ClickTight model because it is the more popular version of the
CRS. NHTSA has added the ‘‘ClickTight’’ designation to the name of the CRS.
NHTSA has confirmed with the manufacturer that the suggested model number
#BC110xx is more widely available. NHTSA is replacing the proposed model with
the model JPMA recommended as part of this final rule.
The Evenflo Generations CRS was a proposed deletion from the appendix. Because
the last update to the appendix was in 2008, when NHTSA initiated this update, 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.
The Evenflo Medallion CRS was a proposed deletion from the appendix. Because the
last update to the appendix was in 2008, when NHTSA initiated this update, 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.
The Evenflo Right Fit CRS was a proposed deletion from the appendix. Because the
last update to the appendix was in 2008, when NHTSA initiated this update, 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.
The Evenflo Tribute CRS was a proposed deletion from the appendix. Because the
last update to the appendix was in 2008, when NHTSA initiated this update, 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.
20 The Alliance for Automotive Innovation
submitted two sets of supplemental comments
(August 2021 and August 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
67877
TABLE 4—JPMA CRS COMMENTS AND NHTSA RESPONSES—Continued
NPRM proposed
model
Graco 4Ever All-in-1 ..
Graco Backless
TurboBooster.
Graco Contender 65
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Safety 1st Dreamride
SE LATCH
#IC238xxx.
JPMA suggested update
Indicated that the currently listed name is for the
original version that is only available at Costco;
recommended replacing with 4ever DLX 4-in-1
model.
Recommended correcting name to ‘‘Graco
Turbobooster Backless Booster Seat’’.
Recommended correcting name to ‘‘Graco Contender 65 Convertible Car Seat’’.
Recommended correcting name to ‘‘Safety 1st
Dreamride with 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 selfcertify 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.
21 49
U.S. C. 30115.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Agency response
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
NHTSA has confirmed this comment with the manufacturer and did not find any significant size and weight differences between the two versions. NHTSA is adopting this
recommendation as part of this final rule. The 4ever DLX 4-in-1 model will be reflected in the updated appendix.
This recommended edit is reflected in the appendix being adopted as part of this final
rule.
This CRS is being replaced with a different CRS due to availability concerns.
This recommended edit is reflected in the appendix being adopted as part of this final
rule.
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.
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 everchanging CRS market. Having the
discretion necessary to choose when to
update appendix A–1 will allow the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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-monthold dummy if it is appropriate to do so
with that seat. As discussed in the
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
67878
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
background section above, FMVSS No.
208 sets out testing requirements for
advanced air bag systems using the 12month-old CRABI dummy, the 3-yearold 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
22 NHTSA recommends that children under the
age of 13 should be seat in the back seat of a
vehicle.
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the potential harm of misclassification
by OCSs.
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
67879
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
(lb)
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
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
Count
(n)
12.79
12.89
13.19
14.18
14.86
14.92
83
89
112
124
121
120
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 *
2012
2012
2013
2014
2014
2015
2015
2016
2018
2018
2019
2019
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
Weight
(lb)
Model name
Type
Baby Trend Fast Back .................................................
Diono Radian RXT ......................................................
Britax Pinnacle 90 .......................................................
Diono Rainier ...............................................................
Diono Pacifica ..............................................................
Graco Smart Seat ........................................................
Diono Olympia .............................................................
Britax Pinnacle Clicktight .............................................
Graco Recline N Ride .................................................
Maxi-Cosi Magellan .....................................................
Diono Rainier 2AXT .....................................................
Cybex Eternis ..............................................................
Combination .................................................................
3-in-1 ............................................................................
Combination .................................................................
3-in-1 ............................................................................
3-in-1 ............................................................................
3-in-1 ............................................................................
3-in-1 ............................................................................
Combination .................................................................
3-in-1 ............................................................................
3-in-1 ............................................................................
3-in-1 ............................................................................
3-in-1 ............................................................................
28.3
27.1
26.8
28.0
27.8
34.4
27.0
26.5
28.1
26.6
29.9
27.1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
* 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
A.23 Accordingly, it is reasonable to
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
Continued
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
67880
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
assume that many manufacturers test
their advanced air bag systems with
more CRSs beyond what is listed in
appendix A–1.
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.
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.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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.
24 https://downloads.aap.org/HC/carseats/3-allin-one-seats.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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 phasein 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 × 248 × 10).
Assuming an annual production of 16
million vehicles, there would be 160
million vehicles for the same time
period (16 million × 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 × 248 × 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67881
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.
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
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 perforce. 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.
26 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
67882
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
to certify their advanced air bag systems
using the new CRSs. As with all phaseins, 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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 costeffective 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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?
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67883
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
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.
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:
■
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
67884
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
§ 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 § 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 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
September 25, 2007.
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
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Manufactured on or after
Century Smart Fit 4543 ...............................................................................................................................................
Cosco Arriva 22–013 PAW and base 22–999 WHO ..................................................................................................
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212 ...........................................................................................................................
Graco Infant 8457 .......................................................................................................................................................
Graco Snugride ...........................................................................................................................................................
Peg Perego Primo Viaggio SIP IMUN00US ...............................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
December 1, 1999.
September 25, 2007.
December 1, 1999.
December 1, 1999.
September 25, 2007.
September 25, 2007.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
67885
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 .......................................................................................................................................
Graco ComfortSport ....................................................................................................................................................
Cosco Touriva 02519 ..................................................................................................................................................
Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx or Evenflo Tribute 381xxxx ..............................................................................................
Evenflo Medallion 254 .................................................................................................................................................
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster 22–262 ....................................................................................................
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx .....................................................................................................................................
Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2 .................................................................................................................................
Graco Platinum Cargo ................................................................................................................................................
Cosco High Back Booster 22–209 ..............................................................................................................................
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
September 25, 2007.
September 25, 2007.
December 1, 1999.
September 25, 2007.
December 1, 1999.
September 25, 2007.
September 25, 2007.
September 25, 2007.
September 25, 2007.
September 25, 2007.
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 ..................................................................................................................................................
Graco Platinum Cargo ................................................................................................................................................
Cosco High Back Booster 22–209 ..............................................................................................................................
Evenflo Right Fit 245 ..................................................................................................................................................
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx .....................................................................................................................................
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster 22–262 ....................................................................................................
Appendix A–1 to § 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
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
December 1, 1999.
September 25, 2007.
September 25, 2007.
December 1, 1999.
September 25, 2007.
September 25, 2007.
SUBPART C—FORWARD-FACING AND
CONVERTIBLE CHILD RESTRAINTS OF
APPENDIX A–1—Continued
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.
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
67886
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Figure A1 to Appendix A and Appendix A–
1 to § 571.208: Loading Bar Foot Detail
A.....,_______,
Drill and Tap for Loading Bar
~
6 ± 2 X 45° TYP
50±5
1
t
2.5 ± 0.5
+
150±2
A ...,______.
050±2
Notes:
SECTION
Drawing Not To Scale
All Dimensions in mm
Surface Finish: 64 (All surfaces)
A-A
Figure A2 to Appendix A and Appendix A–
1 to § 571.208: Loading Bar Installation
Spherical Rod End
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95.
3. The authority citation for part 585
continues to read as follows:
Sec.
585.35
585.36
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
4. Sections 585.35 through 585.37 are
revised to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
■
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
Response to inquiries.
Reporting requirements.
22AUR1
ER22AU24.003
PART 585—PHASE-IN REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
ER22AU24.002
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
300.lb Load Cell (position anywhere
along Loading Bar)
15±3°
~-Loading Bar Foot positioned at
•--~
child restraint seat bight
Child Restraint
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
585.37
*
*
§ 585.35
Records.
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
*
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
§ 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 § 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]
§ 585.37
Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain
records of the Vehicle Identification
Number for each vehicle for which
information is reported under § 585.36
until December 31, 2029.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Aug 21, 2024
Jkt 262001
[FR Doc. 2024–18114 Filed 8–21–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 240506–0128; RTID 0648–
XE206]
Pacific Halibut Fisheries of the West
Coast; Inseason Action for the 2024
Area 2A Pacific Halibut Directed
Commercial Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason
adjustment.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces inseason
action for the 2024 Pacific halibut nonTribal directed commercial fishery in
the International Pacific Halibut
Commission’s (IPHC) regulatory Area
2A. This action adds a fishing period,
August 27 through August 29, 2024,
with a fishing period catch limit of
1,400 pounds (0.64 metric tons (mt)) per
vessel, dressed weight. This action is
intended to provide opportunity to
achieve the 2024 non-tribal directed
commercial fishery allocation.
DATES: Effective August 27, 2024
through December 7, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Fitch, West Coast Region,
NMFS, (360) 320–6549, heather.fitch@
noaa.gov.
SUMMARY:
On May
10, 2024, NMFS published a final rule
implementing fishing periods (i.e.
season dates) and fishing period limits
(i.e. catch limits), by vessel size class,
for the IPHC Area 2A Pacific halibut
non-tribal directed commercial fishery
that operates south of Point Chehalis,
WA (lat. 46°53.30′ N) (89 FR 40417).
The Area 2A non-Tribal directed
commercial fishery allocation is 249,338
pounds (113 mt), net weight (i.e., the
weight of Pacific halibut that is without
gills and entrails, head-off, washed, and
without ice and slime) (89 FR 19275,
March 18, 2024).
The initial fishing periods occurred
on June 25–27 and July 9–11, 2024, with
fishing period limits ranging from 1,800
pounds to 4,500 pounds (0.816 mt to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67887
2.041 mt), dressed weight, varied by
vessel size class. A third fishing period
occurred on August 6–8, 2024, with a
fishing period limit of 1,400 pounds
(0.64 mt), dressed weight, for all vessel
size classes. Landings information to
date indicates that sufficient allocation
remains to warrant an additional fishing
period. Approximately 209,204 pounds
(94.9 mt), net weight, have been
harvested of the 249,338-pound (113 mt)
allocation (84 percent), leaving 40,134
pounds (18.2 mt) remaining (16
percent).
NMFS is adopting an additional
fishing period not previously
implemented in the final rule on May
10, 2024 (89 FR 40417), in accordance
with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii). Fishing
period limits implemented through
inseason action are equal across vessel
size classes and are based on the
allocation estimated to be remaining
and the projected participation and
catch rates in this additional fishing
period.
NMFS has determined the following
inseason action is necessary to meet the
management objective of attaining the
allocation, is not anticipated to risk
exceeding the allocation, and is
consistent with the inseason
management provisions allowing for
additional fishing periods.
Inseason Action
This inseason action implements an
additional fishing period, beginning
August 27, 2024 at 8 a.m. and ending on
August 29, 2024 at 6 p.m. This inseason
action also implements a fishing period
catch limit of 1,400 pounds (0.64 mt)
per vessel, dressed weight (head-on,
with ice and slime), for all vessel size
classes.
Notice of this additional fishing
period and fishing period limit will also
be announced on the NMFS hotline at
206–526–6667 or 800–662–9825.
Classification
NMFS issues this action pursuant to
the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of
1982. This action is taken under the
regulatory authority at 50 CFR
300.63(e)(1)(iii), and is exempt from
review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there
is good cause to waive prior notice and
an opportunity for public comment on
this action, as notice and comment
would be impracticable and contrary to
the public interest. The California,
Oregon, and Washington Departments of
Fish and Wildlife provided estimated
harvest data to NMFS inseason. As of
August 14, 2024, the Area 2A non-Tribal
directed commercial fishery had caught
only an estimated 84 percent of the
E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM
22AUR1
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2024-08-22 |
| File Created | 2024-08-22 |