[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6123-6129]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0156]
RIN 2127-AK57

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the agency's response to petitions for
reconsideration of a November 12, 2008 final rule that amended the
child restraint systems (CRSs) prescribed in Appendix A of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection.'' The final rule established a new appendix, ``Appendix A-
1,'' which effectively deleted seven older CRSs, added five new CRSs,
and provided cosmetic replacements for seven others. Today's response
grants some aspects of two of the petitions. All other requests are
denied.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 9, 2010. If you wish to
petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be
received by March 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets
by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.) You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Ms. Carla Rush, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, telephone
202-366-1740, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, you may contact Ms.
Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may send mail to these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview
II. Background
III. Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Final Rule; Agency Response to Petitions
V. Technical Clarifications
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Overview

    This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
November 12, 2008 final rule \1\ that updated Appendix A of FMVSS No.
208. The appendix lists CRSs that the agency uses in compliance testing
of advanced air bag systems. The November 12, 2008 final rule replaced
a number of older CRSs with those that are more available and more
representative of the CRSs currently on the market. Today's document
grants a petition to exclude small vehicle manufacturers from the
phase-in schedule of the final rule, grants the Alliance's request to
change the car bed model number designation, and adds the Evenflo
Tribute 381xxx to the appendix. All other requests are denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 66786; Docket No. NHTSA-08-0168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On May 12, 2000, NHTSA issued a final rule for advanced air bags
(``Advanced Air Bag Rule'') that amended FMVSS No. 208 to, among other
things, minimize injuries to small adults and young children due to air
bag deployment.\2\ Under the Advanced Air Bag Rule, in order to
minimize the risk to infants and small children from deploying air
bags, vehicle manufacturers may suppress an air bag in the presence of
a child restraint system (CRS) or provide a low risk deployment (LRD)
system. To minimize the risk to children, manufacturers relying on an
air bag suppression or LRD system must ensure that the vehicle complies
with the suppression or LRD requirements when tested with the CRSs
specified in Appendix A of the standard. As part of ensuring the
robustness of automatic air bag suppression and LRD systems, the CRSs
in the appendix represent a large portion of the CRS market and CRSs
with unique size and weight characteristics. NHTSA stated in the
Advanced Air Bag Rule that the list will be updated periodically to
subtract restraints that are no longer in production and to add new
restraints (65 FR at 30724).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 65 FR 30680; Docket No. NHTSA-00-7013; responses to
petitions for reconsideration, 66 FR 65376; Docket No. NHTSA 01-
11110, 66 FR 65376; Docket No. NHTSA 01-11110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 12, 2008, the agency published a final rule that
updated Appendix A to replace a number of older CRSs with those that
were more available and more representative of the CRSs currently on
the market.\3\ The final rule continued to call the current appendix
``Appendix A,'' and established an ``Appendix A-1'' consisting of the
updated appendix. The revisions made to establish Appendix A-1 included
the deletion of seven existing CRSs, the addition of five new CRSs, and
cosmetic replacements for seven existing CRSs. The final rule phased-in
the use of the Appendix A-1 CRSs in compliance testing. Under the
phase-in, 50 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2009 are subject to testing by NHTSA using Appendix A-1, and all
vehicles tested by NHTSA that are manufactured on or after September 1,
2010 are subject to testing using Appendix A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 73 FR 66786; Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 4, 2009, the agency denied a petition for rulemaking from
the Alliance that requested, among other matters, that NHTSA commit to
amending the list of child restraints in Appendix A every three years
and allow manufacturers the option of certifying vehicles to any
edition of Appendix A for five model years after the edition first
becomes effective.\4\ We denied the petition because the requests were
not conducive to maintaining the appendix, to ensuring child restraints
are representative of the current fleet for testing with advanced air
bag systems, and were unnecessarily restrictive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 84 FR 20445; Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Petitions for Reconsideration

    The agency received petitions for reconsideration of the November
12, 2008 final rule from: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance),\5\ Ford Motor Company (Ford), Evenflo Company, Incorporated
(Evenflo), IEE S.A. (IEE), and Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
(VSCI). The issues raised by the petitioners are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Alliance members at the time of the petition included: BMW
Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar/Land
Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, and
Volkswagen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lead time and phase-in. The final rule specified that manufacturers
must begin certifying 50 percent of their vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2009 to Appendix A-1 and all vehicles manufactured
on or after September 1, 2010 to Appendix A-1. The Alliance, Ford, IEE
and VSCI asked for changes to the phase-in schedule.
    Positioning procedure for car bed testing. The final rule made no
change to the procedures for conducting testing with the newborn infant
dummy installed in the car bed. The Alliance requested that the agency
provide a procedure for positioning the infant dummy in the car bed in
FMVSS No. 208.
    Changes to car bed model number designation. The final rule adopted
the Angel Guard Angel Ride Car Bed AA2403FOF in the final rule. The
Alliance requested that the agency change the model designation to be
less specific.
    Replacement seats. The final rule revisions to the appendix
included the deletion of seven existing CRSs, the addition of five new
CRSs, and cosmetic replacements for seven existing CRSs. Evenflo
petitioned for removal of four Evenflo-manufactured seats and suggested
the incorporation of replacement seats that are currently in
production.
    In addition to the petition for reconsideration issues, the
Alliance requested clarification on the use/removal of three CRSs.

IV. Final Rule; Agency Response to Petitions

a. Lead Time and Phase-In

    The November 2008 final rule provided a two-year phase-in, such
that 50 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009
must be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with the CRSs in
the revised Appendix A (Appendix A-1), and all vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2010 must be so certified. Four organizations,
the Alliance, Ford, IEE, and VSCI, submitted petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule's lead time and phase-in.
    The Alliance stated that the lead time specified in the final rule
would impose significant cost burden on the industry without any safety
benefit, which it said, is especially problematic for them now because
the financial resources of the industry are under tremendous strain.
The Alliance stated that many manufacturers have already certified
their model year 2010 vehicles to the existing Appendix A and that the
lead-time and phase-in contained in the final rule would require a
costly recertification of those vehicles. In a February 27, 2009 letter
to the agency, the Alliance provided supplemental information on its
petition. It estimated that recertifying vehicles in accordance with
the phase-in schedule set forth in the final rule would lead to
aggregate incremental costs for five companies to be $526,120 from that
date until September 1, 2009 and an additional

$679,720 between September 1, 2009 and September 1, 2010. The Alliance
stated in its petition that the certification testing specified in the
final rule can require in excess of 1,500 individual child restraint
installations, taking over 20 days to complete with high confidence.
Based on this extensive testing, the Alliance stated that the burden
placed on industry is very significant and there is little to no safety
benefit estimated. Therefore, the Alliance petitioned that NHTSA
postpone and extend the phase-in to three years on a schedule of 20
percent of vehicles built on or after September 1, 2010, 50 percent of
vehicles built on or after September 1, 2011 and 100 percent of
vehicles built on or after September 1, 2012.
    Ford, an Alliance member, also stated that the lead time and phase-
in schedule is not sufficient. Ford submitted confidential information
detailing a typical vehicle test plan with associated costs to conduct
tests necessary to demonstrate compliance with the passenger air bag
suppression requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
    IEE petitioned for a one-year delay of the current phase-in
schedule. IEE stated that it has been the agency's position that the
compliance date for changes to Appendix A would be the next model year
introduced one year after publication of a final rule modifying
Appendix A. IEE stated that NHTSA did not publish the final rule
modifying Appendix A before September 1, 2008, and the current final
rule only provides 9 months and 18 days, not a full year. IEE stated
that ``[t]he supplier industry can not start on November 12, 2008 with
the system calibration and testing for all vehicle models * * * a
manufacturer decision has to be taken first in order that the supplier
knows which models to focus on for short-term (September 1, 2009)
adaptation, and for which models one more year would be available to
guarantee certification.'' IEE stated that NHTSA's indicant tests
cannot conclude that the changes in the CRS characteristics are not
significant enough to alter an advanced air bag system's performance.
It noted that only four CRSs were used in this indicant testing with
seventeen vehicles. IEE stated that a supplier can only decide if the
modified Appendix A-1 alters the system's performance, or not, after
having tested all Appendix A-1 CRSs on all vehicle models it is
equipping. It suggested that only testing a subset of new CRS, and then
concluding there would be no issues with all the new CRS would not be
acceptable in view of having to guarantee FMVSS No. 208 compliance. IEE
stated that NHTSA's indicant testing ``can not be used to motivate an
earlier compliance.''
    Finally, VSCI was concerned that there is no provision in the final
rule for small volume manufacturers (SVMs), and that the final rule
phase-in period should not apply to all SVMs. It noted that there are
some SVMs that only sell one model in the U.S., which means under the
current final rule, those manufacturers would be required to be 100
percent compliant within the first year without any lead time. VSCI
suggested that the agency allow ``* * * manufacturers selling fewer
than 5,000 vehicles per year in the U.S. * * * [to] wait until the end
of the phase-in before having to comply.'' This provision would allow
all SVMs to be 100 percent compliant within two years.
Agency Response
    NHTSA is granting the petition to exclude SVMs from the phase-in
schedule of the final rule and is denying all other aspects of the
petition concerning lead time. The agency agrees that under the final
rule, SVMs with only a single model line would have to be fully
compliant with Appendix A-1 a year ahead of larger vehicle
manufacturers. We believe this would be unduly burdensome on SVMs.
Today's final rule is amended such that SVMs selling fewer than 5,000
vehicles per year in the U.S. may certify to either version of Appendix
A until the end of the phase-in.
    NHTSA is denying the petitions to change the provisions of the
final rule lead time and phase-in schedule for other manufacturers. In
the November 2008 final rule, the agency stated its belief that the
phase-in effectively balanced the competing considerations in updating
the appendix, namely, the need to have a representative list that
ensures the compatibility of suppression and LRD systems with CRSs in
the field, while maintaining some stability to minimize the
certification burden on vehicle manufacturers. Based on our analysis of
the petitions for reconsideration, we do not agree with the
petitioner's requests for additional lead time and extended phase-in.
The Alliance's petition for an additional year of lead time would
effectively postpone use of the new Appendix A-1 seats for
approximately two years and would only require 20% of the fleet to be
certified at that time (or 50% under the IEE petition request). We
believe that delaying implementation of Appendix A-1 is in conflict
with the agency's goal of moving toward a newer version of the Appendix
that would better ensure the CRSs are available and representative of
those in use. Furthermore, the Alliance's additional request to extend
the phase-in for three years on top of the additional year of lead time
would compound the delay in implementation of the testing and diminish
how representative the child seats are during that time period.
    In response to IEE, we note that our decision on lead time and
phase-in was only partially based on testing the agency conducted with
new vehicles and new child restraints. We acknowledge that our indicant
testing was not all-inclusive (i.e., it did not test every type of CRS
with every model of vehicle in the current fleet); however, it was
considered as an indicator of general performance that could be
anticipated by the use of CRSs in Appendix A-1. Our indicant testing
used 4 representative CRSs and 17 new vehicles equipped with current
suppression systems.\6\ The testing identified no compliance issues or
challenges with the new seats, and bolstered the agency's expectation
that new vehicles would readily identify the CRSs without needing
redesign and recalibration. It was also consistent with GM's comments
to the notice of proposed rulemaking \7\ where GM stated, ``Neither our
warranty data or the feedback we receive through our continuous and
close involvement with the Child Passenger Safety (CPS) community
indicates that there are any child restraints in use that do not
properly classify in our vehicles when used in the field.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See test report provided in the docket for this final rule.
    \7\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28710-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intention in providing a phase-in in the final rule was, in
part, to provide vehicle manufacturers the flexibility of selecting
vehicles that could readily comply with the new appendix in the first
year and delay more challenging vehicle models, if they existed, to the
following years. None of the petitioners provided any evidence that any
of the vehicle models would need redesign or recalibration.
    We are not persuaded by IEE's arguments for an additional year of
lead time because of a perceived conflict between the final rule and
the agency's past position on implementation dates, and the fact that
the rule only provides 9 months and 18 days for certification. Only
half of a vehicle manufacturer's production needs to comply with the
first year of the phase-in. Vehicle manufacturers can minimize
recertification burdens by certifying their new model year 2010
vehicles to Appendix A-1 to meet the required

percentage of vehicles that must be certified using Appendix A-1 for
the first year of the phase-in. The effective date and phase-in
schedule apply to all vehicles, without differentiation between new and
``carryover'' models (these are vehicles that were previously certified
to the existing Appendix A). A manufacturer may choose to have new
vehicle models, carryover models, or both, comprise the 50 percent
phase-in requirement. The lead time and phase-in schedule adopted in
the final rule allow vehicle manufacturers to carryover a large
percentage of its vehicles for a year to alleviate recertification
burdens.

b. Positioning Procedure for Car Bed Testing

    The November 12, 2008 final rule did not make amendments to
positioning the newborn infant dummy in the car bed. It was also not
discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking or in the comments in
response to that notice. Section S20.2.3 of FMVSS No. 208 currently
states: ``(c) Position the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart K Newborn Infant
dummy in the car bed by following, to the extent possible, the car bed
manufacturer's instructions provided with the car bed for positioning
infants.''
    The Alliance petitioned for a new positioning procedure for placing
the newborn infant dummy in the Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF car
bed. It noted that when the dummy's head is contained within the car
bed, the dummy's legs/feet rest on the opposite edge of the CRS. The
Alliance noted that the Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF car bed is
designed for a child up to 5 pounds. The Alliance requested that NHTSA
provide a positioning procedure such that the dummy's head is contained
inside the CRS and its legs/feet are allowed to rest on the opposite
edge of the CRS. The Alliance suggested this could be included in FMVSS
No. 208 or included as a footnote to Appendix A-1.
Agency Response
    NHTSA is denying the Alliance petition to adopt a positioning
procedure for the newborn infant dummy in the car bed. The newborn
infant dummy only weighs approximately 7.5 pounds.\8\ According to the
label on the car bed, the bed can accommodate a child up to 9 pounds.
We are also unconvinced that the exact position of the newborn infant
dummy in the car bed would have any significant effect on FMVSS No. 208
advanced air bag suppression testing. The distribution of where the
newborn infant dummy weight is applied to the seat will not change
significantly. The Alliance has not provided any data demonstrating
that there are practical issues with the exact positioning of the
newborn infant dummy in this car bed and we are unconvinced that
sensing systems are not robust enough to accommodate small weight
shifts within the carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.dentonatd.com/dentonatd/pdf/cami.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Changes to Car Bed Model Number Designation

    The final rule adopted the Angel Guard Angel Ride AA2403FOF car bed
in Appendix A-1. In its petition, the Alliance noted that the model
designation specified in the final rule for this car bed is no longer
available. According to the Alliance, it contacted the manufacturer of
this product and learned that the first two characters in the model
number are for packaging and minor product changes that would not
change its expected performance in FMVSS No. 208 low risk deployment
and suppression tests. It also learned that the last three characters
refer to the specification of fabric color (also not affecting FMVSS
No. 208 performance). Therefore, the Alliance petitioned for the model
designation for the Angel Guard Angel Ride infant car bed to be changed
from AA2403FOF to xx2403xxx.
Agency Response
    NHTSA is granting the Alliance's petition to change the car bed
model number designation. From our contact with the manufacturer,\9\ we
learned that the first letter of the model number designates the way in
which the car bed was packaged and should not have an influence on the
performance of the car bed in FMVSS No. 208 CRS testing. The second
letter designates small manufacturing changes that would not affect the
footprint, and weight of the seat significantly and the last three
letters denote that the CRS had the factory option fabric (FOF)
installed. The manufacturer reported that the second letter currently
changed due to label changes and a re-designed harness. The label
changes were made in response to NHTSA's Ease-of-Use program. Because
the letters do not represent any feature of the infant car bed that
would affect FMVSS No. 208 CRS testing, the agency agrees with the
Alliance that there is no need to specify these designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the NHTSA ex-parte memo provided in the docket for this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Replacement Seats

    The final rule adopted revisions to the appendix that included the
deletion of seven existing CRSs, addition of five new CRSs, and
cosmetic replacements for seven existing CRSs. In its petition for
reconsideration, Evenflo requested that four Evenflo-manufactured CRSs
be removed from Appendix A-1 because they are no longer in production.
They include: the Discovery Adjust Right 212, Medallion 254, Right Fit
245, and Tribute V 379xxxx. Evenflo provided three potential
replacements for the four CRSs.
Agency Response
    The agency is denying the Evenflo petition. With regard to three
out of four of the CRSs, these CRSs (Discovery Adjust Right 212,
Medallion 254 and Right Fit 245) were not proposed for deletion in the
NPRM and subsequently not deleted in the final rule. The agency
purposely left these seats effective in the final rule since they were
not targeted for immediate replacement at that time. While replacing
these CRSs is presently out of scope of this rulemaking, the agency may
consider these suggestions in a future update of Appendix A.
    The fourth seat, the Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx, was a new addition
to the appendix. Evenflo suggested that the Tribute 381xxxx would be a
viable replacement for the Tribute V 379xxxx. According to Evenflo, the
latter CRS went out of production in October of 2008 (shortly prior to
the publication of the final rule). This request was also made by the
Alliance in its petition for reconsideration. The agency is partially
granting this request. See Section V.b. of today's document for the
agency's response regarding this CRS.

V. Technical Clarifications

a. Evenflo First Choice 204

    The November 12, 2008 final rule regulatory text of Appendix A-1
did not include the Evenflo First Choice 204 and the preamble was
silent about its removal. In its petition, the Alliance requested
confirmation that the removal of this CRS was intentional since the CRS
was not specifically discussed in the NPRM and was not mentioned in the
preamble of the final rule.
Agency Response
    We confirm that the Evenflo First Choice 204 has been removed and
is not included in Appendix A-1. In section II.c. of the NPRM (72 FR at
54407), NHTSA requested comment on changing CRSs in Appendix A other
than those proposed to be deleted in section II.a. or added in section
II.b. The

changes proposed by section II.c were primarily to update older CRSs in
the appendix with newer model CRSs that have the same main physical
features as the older restraints. TRW commented that either the Evenflo
First Choice 204 or the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212 should be
deleted because, aside from the latter having a removable base, they
are identical seats. The agency agreed to delete the Evenflo First
Choice 204 because this child restraint shares the same shell as the
Evenflo Adjust Right. Since FMVSS No. 208 CRS testing is done with and
without the base attached, testing with the Evenflo Adjust Right in the
``no base'' mode is the same as testing with the Evenflo First Choice
204. The agency decided to delete the Evenflo First Choice 204 to avoid
redundant testing.

b. Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx

    In its February 27, 2009 supplement to its petition, the Alliance
stated that it learned, subsequent to its December 2008 petition, that
the Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx was no longer in production after October
2008. The Alliance urged NHTSA to confirm that in view of the seat
``becoming unavailable'' prior to the issuance of the final rule
adopting Appendix A-1, vehicle manufacturers will not need to certify
compliance of their vehicles using this CRS.\10\ It said that the
agency stated the following on November 19, 2003 regarding
unavailability:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As discussed in Section IV.d. of this document, Evenflo
also petitioned for this seat to be replaced with the Evenflo
Tribute 381xxxx.

    Even with diligent review of Appendix A, there may be rare
occasions when a new addition of the list becomes unavailable or
undergoes a significant design change between the time an amendment
is proposed and when it is issued as a final rule. Under this
limited circumstance, the agency would not use the unavailable or
altered CRS for compliance testing and the manufacturers would
likewise be relieved of any burden to procure the CRS or use it to
test for suppression. 68 FR at 65179, 65188.
Agency Response
    The view of the agency expressed in the 2003 statement was
explained in and modified by the November 12, 2008 final rule (73 FR at
66795). In the 2008 final rule, NHTSA re-evaluated the statement and
determined that it was overtaken by events in today's context. We also
determined that the decision as to whether a CRS differs so much on the
day of publication of a rule from the CRS that the agency had proposed
should be addressed in a rulemaking proceeding. It was not a matter to
be assumed that the CRS would be removed from compliance testing.
Relatedly, while production of the Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx ceased in
October 2008, no data was provided by the Alliance to suggest that the
seats were ``unavailable for purchase.'' Thus, we decline to remove the
CRS from the appendix.
    That being said, we have decided to grant Evenflo's request to
include the Evenflo Tribute 381xxxx in the appendix. Both the Evenflo
Tribute V 379xxxx and the Tribute 381xxxx have the same footprint and
dimensions. The only minor differences are the internal harness
adjuster and the number of adjustments for the shoulder belts and
crotch strap. We will not replace the Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx with
the Evenflo Tribute 381xxxx, but will instead allow certification
testing to be conducted with either CRS. We are allowing this option in
this final rule so as not to penalize manufacturers that diligently
procured a sufficient supply of the Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx for
testing and have since certified vehicles to the final rule. The agency
will permit this unique option since both CRSs would provide an
equivalent level of safety for the purposes of FMVSS No. 208 testing.

c. Cosco Arriva 22-013PAW

    In its February 27, 2009 supplement to its petition, the Alliance
reported that Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG), the manufacturer of the Cosco
Arriva 22-013PAW, has indicated that the CRS is no longer in production
due to the unavailability of its base, No. 22-999WHO. The Alliance
urged NHTSA to confirm that in view of the seat ``becoming
unavailable'' prior to the issuance of the final rule adopting Appendix
A-1, vehicle manufacturers will not need to certify compliance of their
vehicles using this CRS.
Agency Response
    The agency does not concur with the Alliance's reliance on the
statement of the 2003 final rule for the reasons given above regarding
the Cosco Arriva 22-013PAW. Further, the agency received information
from the manufacturer that the base, No. 22-999WHO would be put back in
production for FMVSS No. 208 testing.\11\ Accordingly, the request is
denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the NHTSA ex-parte memo provided in the docket for this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The costs and benefits
of advanced air bags are discussed in the agency's Final Economic
Assessment for the May 2000 final rule (Docket 7013). The cost and
benefit analysis provided in that document would not be affected by
this final rule, since this final rule only slightly adjusts the phase-
in schedule for SVMs and makes small adjustments to the CRSs used in
test procedures of that final rule. The minimal impacts of today's
amendment do not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities.
I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers,
some of which qualify as small entities. However, the entities that
qualify as small businesses will not be significantly affected by this
rulemaking because this rule adjusts the phase-in schedule for them,
which is a positive impact. These entities are already required to
comply with the advanced air bag requirements, so this final rule does
not establish new requirements.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking does not have federalism implications because this final
rule does not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the issue of
preemption in connection with today's rulemaking. The issue of
preemption can arise in connection with NHTSA rules in two

ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains
an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command that unavoidably preempts State legislative and administrative
law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption in some instances, State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law,
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of an
NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable.
See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). However,
NHTSA has considered the nature and purpose of today's final rule and
does not foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict
with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The November 12,
2008 final rule contained a collection of information because of the
phase-in reporting requirements. There was no burden to the general
public.
    The November 12, 2008 final rule required manufacturers of
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses
having a GVWR of 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) or less, to annually submit a
report, and maintain records related to the report, concerning the
number of such vehicles that meet the FMVSS No. 208 requirements using
Appendix A-1 during the phase-in of those requirements. The purpose of
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements is to assist the agency in
determining whether a manufacturer of vehicles has complied with the
requirements during the phase-in period. Today's final rule has no
further reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.''
    There are no voluntary consensus standards that address the CRSs
that should be included in Appendix A.

Civil Justice Reform

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA
notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a
petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding
before they may file suit in court.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted for inflation, with base year of 1995).
This final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in
excess of $100 million annually.

Executive Order 13045

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

Executive Order 13211

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

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us at
the address provided at the beginning of this document.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in
the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.208 is amended by:
0
 Adding S14.8.5
0
 Revising Appendix A-1

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

* * * * *
    S14.8.5 Until September 1, 2011, manufacturers selling fewer than
5,000 vehicles per year in the U.S. may certify their vehicles as
complying with S19, S21, and S23 when using the child restraint systems
specified in Appendix A. Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2011 by these manufacturers must be certified as complying with S19,
S21, and S23 when using the child restraint systems specified in
Appendix A-1.
* * * * *

Appendix A-1 to Sec.  571.208--Selection of Child Restraint Systems

    This Appendix A-1 applies to not less than 50 percent of a
manufacturer's vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009
and before September 1, 2010, as specified in S14.8 of this
standard. This appendix applies to all vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2010.
    A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after the date
listed, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has
been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19:

           Subpart A--Car Bed Child Restraints of Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Guard Angel Ride XX2403XXX..........  September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems
specified in the table below, manufactured on or after the date
listed, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to test the suppression or low risk deployment (LRD)
system of a vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance
with 49 CFR 571.208 S19. When the restraint system comes equipped
with a removable base, the test may be run either with the base
attached or without the base.

         Subpart B--Rear-Facing Child Restraints of Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century Smart Fit 4543....................  December 1, 1999.
Cosco Arriva 22-013 PAW and base 22-999     September 25, 2007.
 WHO.
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212........  December 1, 1999.
Graco Infant 8457.........................  December 1, 1999.
Graco Snugride............................  September 25, 2007.
Peg Perego Primo Viaggio SIP IMUN00US.....  September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems,
and forward-facing child restraint systems that also convert to
rear-facing, manufactured on or after the date listed, may be used
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to test the
suppression or LRD system of a vehicle that has been certified as
being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19, or S21. (Note: Any
child restraint listed in this subpart that does not have
manufacturer instructions for using it in a rear-facing position is
excluded from use in testing in a belted rear-facing configuration
under S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) and S20.4.2):

Subpart C--Forward-Facing and Convertible Child Restraints of Appendix A-
                                    1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roundabout E9L02xx.................  September 25, 2007.
Graco ComfortSport........................  September 25, 2007.
Cosco Touriva 02519.......................  December 1, 1999.
Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx or Evenflo        September 25, 2007.
 Tribute 381xxxx.
Evenflo Medallion 254.....................  December 1, 1999.
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster 22-   September 25, 2007.
 262.
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx...............  September 25, 2007.
Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2.............  September 25, 2007.
Graco Platinum Cargo......................  September 25, 2007.
Cosco High Back Booster 22-209............  September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems
and belt positioning seats, manufactured on or after the date
listed, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration as test devices to test the suppression system of a
vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR
571.208 S21 or S23:

Subpart D--Forward-Facing Child Restraints and Belt Positioning Seats of
                              Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roadster 9004......................  December 1, 1999.
Graco Platinum Cargo......................  September 25, 2007.
Cosco High Back Booster 22-209............  September 25, 2007.
Evenflo Right Fit 245.....................  December 1, 1999.
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx...............  September 25, 2007.
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster 22-   September 25, 2007.
 262.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: January 25, 2010.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-2610 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13756-13757]
[DOCID:fr17mr06-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. RM06-15-000]

Annual Update of Filing Fees

March 10, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; annual update of Commission filing fees.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 18 CFR 381.104, the Commission issues this
update of its filing fees. This notice provides the yearly update using
data in the Commission's Management, Administrative, and Payroll System
to calculate the new fees. The purpose of updating is to adjust the
fees on the basis of the Commission's costs for Fiscal Year 2005.

DATES: Effective Date: April 17, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Misiewicz, Office of the
Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Room 4R-03, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Document Availability

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's

Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
    From FERC's Web site on the Internet, this information is available
in the eLibrary (formerly FERRIS). The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field and follow other directions on the search page.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of
FERC's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Annual Update of Filing Fees in Part 381

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing
this notice to update filing fees that the Commission assesses for
specific services and benefits provided to identifiable beneficiaries.
Pursuant to 18 CFR 381.104, the Commission is establishing updated fees
on the basis of the Commission's Fiscal Year 2005 costs. The adjusted
fees announced in this notice are effective April 17, 2006. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget, that this final rule is not a major rule within
the meaning of section 251 of Subtitle E of Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission is submitting
this final rule to both houses of the United States Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States.

    The new fee schedule is as follows:

              Fees Applicable to the Natural Gas Policy Act

 1. Petitions for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR                $9,900
 284.123(b)(2). (18 CFR 381.403)............................

                  Fees Applicable to General Activities

 1. Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except         $19,890
 under Part I of the Federal Power Act). (18 CFR 381.302(a))
2. Review of a Department of Energy remedial order:
                    Amount in controversy
    $0-9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b))...........................        $100
    $10,000-29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)).....................        $600
    $30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.303(a))....................     $29,040
3. Review of a Department of Energy denial of adjustment:
                    Amount in controversy
    $0-9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b))...........................        $100
    $10,000-29,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)).....................        $600
    $30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.304(a))....................     $15,230
4. Written legal interpretations by the Office of General         $5,700
 Counsel. (18 CFR 381.305(a))...............................

                 Fees Applicable to Natural Gas Pipelines

 1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR        * $1,000
 284.224. (18 CFR 381.207(b))...............................

        Fees Applicable to Cogenerators and Small Power Producers

 1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power          $17,110
 production facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a))...................
2. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration          $19,360
 facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a))..............................
3. Applications for exempt wholesale generator status. (18         $920
 CFR 381.801)...............................................

* This fee has not been changed.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381

    Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Natural gas, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

Thomas R. Herlihy,
Executive Director.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 381,
chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 381--FEES

0
1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 16 U.S.C. 791-828c, 2601-2645; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-
85.

Sec.  381.302  [Amended]

0
2. In 381.302, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$19,410'' and
inserting ``$19,890'' in its place.

Sec.  381.303  [Amended]

0
3. In 381.303, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$28,330'' and
inserting ``$29,040'' in its place.

Sec.  381.304  [Amended]

0
4. In 381.304, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$14,850'' and
inserting ``$15,230'' in its place.

Sec.  381.305  [Amended]

0
5. In 381.305, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$5,560'' and
inserting ``$5,700'' in its place.

Sec.  381.403  [Amended]

0
6. Section 381.403 is amended by removing ``$9,660'' and inserting
``$9,900'' in its place.

Sec.  381.505  [Amended]

0
7. In 381.505, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$16,690'' and
inserting ``$17,110'' in its place and by removing ``$18,890'' and
inserting ``$19,360'' in its place.

Sec.  381.801  [Amended]

0
8. Section 381.801 is amended by removing ``$890'' and inserting
``$920'' in its place.

[FR Doc. 06-2587 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P