[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3252]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 16, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 34]
RIN 2127-AE80

 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends labeling and other requirements of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint 
Systems,'' for rear-facing infant restraint systems. It requires that 
warning labels for these systems include a warning against using the 
restraint in any vehicle seating position equipped with an air bag. It 
also requires that printed instructions for rear-facing restraints 
include safety information about air bags.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 15, 1994. Petitions for 
reconsideration of the rule must be received by March 18, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and 
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, room 5220, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Office of 
Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 
202-366-4919).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends labeling and other 
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child 
Restraint Systems,'' for rear-facing infant restraint systems. The 
amendments made by this document were proposed in a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) published on April 16, 1993 (58 FR 19792). Rear-
facing restraints are currently required by Standard 213 to be labeled 
with warnings and other information about their proper use (S5.5.1 and 
S5.52). This rule requires that the warning label for rear-facing 
restraints include a warning against using the restraint in any vehicle 
seating position equipped with an air bag. This document also requires 
that printed instructions for these seats include safety information 
about air bags.
    ``Rear-facing infant restraint system,'' as used in this document, 
refers to an infant restraint system (except a car bed) which is 
positioned in a vehicle so that the restrained infant faces the rear of 
the vehicle. In a frontal crash, the crash forces are spread evenly 
across the infant's back and shoulders, the strongest part of an 
infant's body.
    When the rear-facing infant restraint is placed on a vehicle seat, 
the restraint's seat back projects forward, far in front of the vehicle 
seat back. If the vehicle seating position is a front passenger one 
equipped with an air bag, the forward-projecting seat back of the 
infant restraint may rest on or be located close to the part of the 
vehicle instrument panel containing the air bag.
    Placing a rear-facing restraint on such a vehicle seat raises a 
safety concern of the interaction between those restraints and air 
bags. An air bag must inflate quickly to create a protective cushion 
that protects occupants during frontal crashes. The quickly deploying 
air bag might injure an infant when it strikes the seat back of a rear-
facing infant restraint.
    In the Fall of 1991, the agency evaluated air bag/infant restraint 
interactions by conducting 30 mph dynamic sled tests with top and mid-
mounted air bags. (The data from these tests are available in Docket 
No. 74-09, General Reference.) NHTSA's findings from these tests 
indicate that air bags generally produce substantial increases in the 
values for the head injury criterion (HIC) and chest acceleration of 
dummies seated in rear-facing restraints, compared to the values for 
dummies in rear-facing restraints tested with no air bag.
    To reduce the likelihood that an infant restraint would be placed 
in a vehicle seating position that has an air bag, the agency is 
requiring each infant restraint to be labeled with a warning against 
such use. The warning must state either:
    Warning: When your baby's size requires that this restraint be used 
so that your baby faces the rear of the vehicle, place the restraint in 
a vehicle seat that does not have an air bag.

or

    Warning: Place this restraint in a vehicle seat that does not have 
an air bag.

The former warning is used for convertible infant seats, i.e., seats 
that can use rear-facing for infants and forward-facing for older 
children. The latter is for seats that can be used only rear-facing for 
infants.
    The warning must be labeled on a red, orange or yellow background 
and be visible to a person installing the restraint.
    NHTSA is also requiring that infant restraint manufacturers provide 
information on the air bag/infant restraint interaction issue in their 
printed instructions accompanying the infant restraint. The 
manufacturers must provide a warning against using rear-facing 
restraints in seating positions equipped with air bags, and explain the 
reasons for, and consequences of, not following the warning.
    NHTSA has already required vehicle manufacturers to provide 
warnings and information about the interaction of air bags and rear-
facing infant restraints. This information must be placed on the sun 
visors in vehicles with air bags and provided in the vehicle owner's 
manual. (This requirement is included in the rule implementing the 
provision in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
requiring the agency to mandate air bags at all front outboard seating 
positions in passenger cars, and in light trucks and multipurpose 
vehicles. 58 FR 46551, September 1, 1993.) Today's rule supplements 
that requirement to increase the likelihood that parents will be made 
aware of the possible effect of a deploying air bag on an infant 
restraint. Further, when the vehicle itself is labeled, parents will be 
provided the safety information even if the infant restraint they are 
using lacks the label required by today's final rule (which could 
happen if the infant restraint were manufactured before the effective 
date of today's rule).
    The requirements adopted in today's document are substantially 
similar to those NHTSA proposed in the April 1993 NPRM. The text 
proposed in the notice for convertible seats (which are designed for 
use by both an infant and toddler) and infant restraints read, 
respectively:
    Warning: When this restraint is used in a rear-facing mode, do not 
place in the front seat of a vehicle that has a passenger side air bag.

and,

    Warning: Do not use this infant restraint in the front seat of a 
vehicle that has a passenger side air bag.

    With the goal of having the warning be conspicuous, NHTSA proposed 
that the message be on a yellow background, and be visible when the 
restraint is installed rear-facing in the vehicle. The agency requested 
comments on whether the message should be required to be visible to a 
person in the driver's seat when the restraint is so installed.
    The agency received 16 comments on the NPRM. Commenters included 
child seat manufacturers (Century, Fisher Price, Cosco), vehicle 
manufacturers (Volkswagen, Ford), state safety agencies (Michigan, New 
York), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, consumer groups (SafetyBeltSafe, Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety), business groups (Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety, National Automobile Dealers Association), and private 
individuals. All the commenters generally supported the NPRM; several 
had suggested changes.
    Most of the comments related to issues about the wording of the 
label. Comments were also received on the label's conspicuity, and on 
the proposal that child seat manufacturers provide information about 
air bags in the consumer instructions accompanying each restraint. In 
addition, some commenters were concerned about the possible effect of 
the labeling and informational requirements on the possible development 
of infant restraints that can be safely used in an air bag-equipped 
vehicle seating position.

Wording of the Label

    Commenters addressed various issues about the wording of the 
warning label.
    One issue is whether specific wording should be mandated. The 
proposed regulatory text contained the exact wording of the label. Like 
the other safety warnings required by Standard 213, the air bag/infant 
restraint warning would have to be printed word for word as set forth 
in the standard. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) 
believed the exact wording should be specified. ``It would not be 
appropriate to leave the wording of a safety warning label, which must 
be concise, clear, accurate, and uniform, to manufacturer discretion.'' 
Commenters such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Jerome 
Koziatek and Robert Potter, Jr. conferred that the wording should be 
mandated, and suggested changes to the wording to improve it. Ford 
opposed mandating the wording, believing that the prescribed wording 
may limit the flexibility of manufacturers, especially if it became 
possible for a child seat manufacturer to recommend use of an infant 
restraint in an air bag-equipped seating position under certain 
circumstances. (This issue of the future development of infant 
restraints is further discussed below.) Ford stated that the wording 
currently specified in Standard 213 ``can be altered as needed.''
    The specific wording of the safety warnings currently required by 
Standard 213 to be marked on a child seat is mandated. Notwithstanding 
Ford, all other commenters appeared to understand that the wording of 
the air bag warning must appear on the restraint as stated in the 
standard. It is for that reason that comments were requested and 
submitted on the efficacy and appropriateness of the wording. NHTSA has 
decided to mandate the wording of the new air bag warning for the 
reasons explained in the NPRM. Those reasons are consistent with 
Advocates' view, quoted above, that the wording must be carefully 
crafted so as to reduce as much as possible the possibility that the 
warning is misunderstood. As explained in the NPRM:


    [T]he message should be brief, alerting consumers to and 
reminding them about a safety concern without causing ``information 
overload.'' The message also should not inadvertently induce the 
consumer to misuse a restraint, such as might happen if the message 
were so loosely worded that consumers might conclude they could 
avoid the problem by simply turning the restraint around so that the 
child is forward-facing when the restraint is used in an air bag 
equipped seating position. The message also should be conspicuous.


58 FR at 19793.
    To further clarify Standard 213's labeling requirements for Ford, 
NHTSA notes that the safety warnings required by the standard may not 
be ``altered as needed'' by a manufacturer. If a manufacturer believes 
the wording should be altered, it must submit a petition for rulemaking 
to change the requirements in Standard 213.
    Cosco expressed concern that Standard 213 already requires too many 
warnings, and that another warning would compound the complexity and 
confusion of the labeling. That child seat manufacturer is concerned 
that consumers may not pay attention to or understand the warnings 
because there are simply too many warnings. Cosco suggested that NHTSA 
review the labeling required by the standard and possibly condense some 
of the required information. Fisher-Price also suggested that NHTSA 
undertake a ``complete reconsideration'' of Standard 213's labeling 
requirements, ``to assure that on-seat markings are not rendered 
ineffectual because of the excess of required information.''
    NHTSA agrees that a significant amount of information is required 
to be labeled on an infant restraint, and is willing to consider, in a 
future rulemaking, suggestions for ways in which the information could 
be edited or condensed. The agency believes that the air bag warning is 
needed now notwithstanding that it will be another item of information 
that competes for the attention of the consumer. However, the agency 
will review Standard 213's labeling requirements as Cosco and Fisher-
Price suggested.
    Commenters were divided on whether the proposed wording was 
sufficiently clear. SafetyBeltSafe and the IIHS believed the statements 
were clear; however, some other commenters believed the clarity of the 
wording could be improved. The AAP believed that, in response to the 
proposed wording for convertible seats, some consumers might mistakenly 
turn the restraint so that the infant is forward-facing in an air bag 
position. AAP suggested that the warning should be clearer that an 
infant restraint must be used rear-facing, regardless of the presence 
of an air bag. To accomplish this, AAP suggested that the warning 
include the statement, ``When your baby's size requires that this 
restraint be used in a rear-facing position * * *'' as a condition 
precedent for the warning not to use the restraint in an air-bag 
equipped seating position. NHTSA agrees the wording should refer to the 
baby's size and has made appropriate changes.
    Some commenters objected to certain words in the proposed warning. 
AAP suggested the word ``position'' should be used instead of ``mode'' 
in the term ``rear-facing mode,'' since the former word is more 
commonly recognized than the latter. Cosco said that adding ``mode'' 
following ``rear-facing'' is unnecessary. NHTSA has removed ``mode'' 
from the wording. Cosco also suggested the references to ``front seat'' 
or ``passenger side'' in ``passenger side air bag'' are unnecessary, 
since they do not add any relevant information. The agency agrees. Mr. 
Koziatek suggested the label should direct the consumer to ``secure'' 
the restraint instead of ``place'' it on the vehicle seat, to increase 
the likelihood that the restraint will be fastened to the seat. NHTSA 
declines to make the change, because ``secure'' might distract a 
consumer from the purpose of the air bag warning.
    Some comments suggested adding more text to the warning label. Mr. 
Koziatek recommended that the label include a statement directing the 
consumer to check the vehicle owner's manual for information about 
where the infant restraint should be placed in the vehicle. The 
statement is not needed on the label. Child seat labels already must 
refer consumers to the printed instructions for information on securing 
the child seat to the vehicle (S5.5.2(g)). Also, NHTSA is requiring the 
printed instructions for child seats to include a statement that owners 
of vehicles with passenger side air bags should refer to their vehicle 
owner's manual for child seat installation instructions. Moreover, 
NHTSA's September 1993 rule mandating air bags in passenger vehicles 
will require the sun visor on vehicles with passenger side air bags to 
be labeled with a statement referring the consumer to the vehicle 
owner's manual for information about the warning not to use a rear-
facing infant restraint in a vehicle seating position equipped with an 
air bag. Placing the same information on the child seat would be 
redundant, and would further crowd the child seat label.
    Other suggestions were made for adding additional text to the 
warning label. Mr. Potter believed a statement describing the possible 
consequences of not following the warning is needed, such as by 
referring to the possibility of ``serious injury or death.'' NHTSA 
disagrees, since this rule already requires the use instructions to 
contain information on the consequences of not following the warning. 
SafetyBeltSafe suggested that the label should include a warning in 
Spanish. NHTSA is not requiring the bilingual labeling for the reasons 
discussed at 55 FR 48262 (denial of Mattox petition to require Spanish 
installation instructions, November 20, 1990). Thus, the standard 
requires manufacturers to supply the information in English. However, 
once this requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same 
information in other languages, so long as the presence or location of 
the translation does not confuse consumers.
    Several commenters responded to the agency's request for comments 
on the merits of requiring a symbol (or graphic) warning about using 
rear-facing restraints with an air bag. New York's Department of Motor 
Vehicles supported the use of a symbol because ``a symbol would assist 
adults who are reading disabled or who speak a foreign language.'' The 
AAP believed it would be desirable to have a symbol of a child 
restraint on the vehicle dashboard, ``if a non-confusing symbol can be 
designed.'' Century commented that a symbol can increase the 
effectiveness of the warning label ``as long as it adequately 
identifies and warns of the hazard.'' Cosco expressed reservations 
about requiring a symbol. That commenter believed a symbol would draw 
an excessive amount of attention to the issue of the air bag's possible 
effect on a rear-facing restraint ``over others that may be as bad or 
worse,'' such as, Cosco believes, the incompatibility of vehicle belts 
with certain child seats. Cosco also stated that the effectiveness of a 
symbol depends on the ability of the consumer to recognize it. ``If 
NHTSA requires such a symbol, it should be prepared to publicize it.''
    The agency has decided not to require use of a symbol. Had it been 
required, the symbol would have been in addition to the words. NHTSA 
believes that the words will draw sufficient attention to the label, 
especially since the warning will be subject to the conspicuity 
requirements discussed in the next section. In response to New York's 
comment that a symbol would assist adults who are reading disabled or 
who speak a foreign language, the agency is concerned that there is no 
universally recognized symbol for effectively communicating the warning 
at this time. The lack of such familiarity with a symbol would reduce 
the symbol's effectiveness and could cause confusion.

Conspicuity of the Label

    The conspicuity of the label is ensured by requirements concerning 
its location, color and font style.
    The aspect of promoting the conspicuity of the label that 
engendered the most comments was the location of the warning label, 
i.e., whether the message should be required to be visible to a person 
in the driver's seat if the restraint were installed rear-facing in the 
front outboard passenger seating position. Seven commenters responded 
to this issue. The IIHS concurred that the label should be visible to 
the driver. Century, Advocates, SafetyBeltSafe, Fisher-Price, and the 
AAP objected to the driver's side approach. These commenters believed 
locating the label so that it is visible to the driver reduces the 
effectiveness of the warning, since the warning would be readable only 
when the restraint is improperly installed. The commenters believed a 
driver noticing the label on an improperly installed restraint would be 
unlikely to take the time to exit the vehicle and move the restraint to 
the rear seat of the vehicle. Mr. Potter suggested the label should be 
placed on the shoulder harness/webbing of the restraint.
    NHTSA agrees that the warning should be visible to the installer 
while the restraint is being installed. The agency thinks that there is 
merit in the commenters' belief that a driver who noticed the warning 
could be reluctant to stop the vehicle to move a rear-facing infant 
restraint to the vehicle's rear seat after the infant restraint is 
installed. Further, the driver would already have been provided a 
warning as a result of the September 1993 rule mandating air bags in 
passenger vehicles. The rule requires the driver's side sun visor on 
vehicles with passenger side air bags to be labeled with a warning 
against using rear-facing child restraints with the passenger side air 
bag. Accordingly, NHTSA is requiring that the warning on the child 
restraint be visible to a person who is standing adjacent to the front 
outboard passenger seat of a vehicle and installing the rear-facing 
infant restraint system in that seat.
    The requirement concerning the color of the contrasting background 
for the warning has been changed from the proposal in response to a 
comment from Ford. Ford suggested that red and orange be permitted in 
addition to yellow. NHTSA is permitting those similarly bright and 
attention-attracting colors. Ford also suggested that the color be 
required only for the word ``WARNING'' at the beginning of the required 
statement, instead of the entire statement. NHTSA is requiring the 
entire statement to be printed against the color contrasting background 
to maximize the conspicuity of the warning.
    Volkswagen objected to the requirement that the letters be 
capitalized, stating that manufacturers should be allowed to decide on 
the print format. NHTSA disagrees. Standard 213 requires important 
safety messages on the proper use of child restraints to be 
capitalized. These include a warning that the consequences of failing 
to follow the manufacturer's use instructions can result in the child 
striking the vehicle's interior in a crash (S5.5.2(g)), and directions 
on snugly adjusting the child restraint belts around the child 
(S5.5.2(h)) and on placing an infant restraint so that it is rear-
facing (S5.5.2(k)). The air bag warning is as important as these 
messages. Requiring the information to be capitalized is consistent 
with the present labeling requirement of S5.5.2 to capitalize such 
information, and increases the likelihood that the consumer will notice 
and read the information. However, NHTSA will revisit this issue when 
it reviews all labeling requirements.

Printed Instructions

    This rule amends S5.6.1 to add a requirement that the printed 
instructions for rear-facing infant restraints must provide a warning 
against using rear-facing restraints at seating positions equipped with 
air bags and must explain the reasons for the warning and consequences 
of not following it. NHTSA is also requiring that the instructions 
include a statement that owners of vehicles with front passenger side 
air bags should refer to their vehicle owner's manual for child seat 
installation instructions. The agency adopted the latter requirement in 
response to a suggestion from Volkswagen. Effective March 1994, the 
owner's manual of each vehicle having a front passenger side air bag 
must include information on the proper positioning of occupants, 
including children, at seating positions equipped with an air bag. The 
information must include any necessary precautions that should be 
heeded for the safety of those occupants. The requirement adopted today 
for infant restraint instructions complements the requirement for the 
vehicle owner's manual.

Effect on Future Designs

    The agency believes that the label and information requirements 
adopted today will be effective in warning consumers against using a 
rear-facing infant restraint in a vehicle seating position equipped 
with an air bag. The warning is needed because data have indicated that 
unacceptably high forces are produced by a deploying air bag on present 
designs of rear-facing infant restraints.
    Several commenters, however, expressed concern that the 
requirements adopted today might impede the development of rear-facing 
infant restraints that are safe to use in an air bag equipped seating 
position. These commenters indicated that manufacturers are undertaking 
efforts to develop infant restraints that can be used in an air bag-
equipped seating position. Ford said that the warning statement may 
limit the flexibility of infant restraint manufacturers to recommend 
using a rear-facing system in an air bag-equipped seating position 
under limited circumstances, such as if the vehicle seat were adjusted 
to a certain position. Century stated that NHTSA should ensure that the 
warning label requirement does not prevent future child seat designs 
that work adequately with an air bag. Century suggested that NHTSA 
should begin defining a test procedure and performance criteria for 
testing the interaction of child restraints with air bags.
    NHTSA does not intend for this rule to impede the development of 
rear-facing restraints that are compatible with an air bag. As 
discussed in the NPRM, the agency has been closely monitoring the work 
of a task force on Child Restraint and Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) 
formed by the Society of Automotive Engineers. The task force is 
comprised of motor vehicle and child seat manufacturers and highway 
safety researchers. It has developed guidelines consisting of test 
procedures and test configurations (e.g., test dummies and a test 
fixture) that can be used for evaluating the interactions between child 
restraints and air bags. Moreover, NHTSA has developed, for research 
and evaluation purposes, procedures that were used in the Fall 1991 
test program of air bags and rear-facing infant restraints. NHTSA will 
continue to closely monitor the work of CRABI, especially regarding the 
development of test procedures evaluating the performance of an infant 
restraint when used with a passenger side air bag. If CRABI were to 
develop a test procedure from its guidelines, NHTSA would evaluate it 
to determine whether the procedure is appropriate for Standard 213. 
Among other things, the procedure would have to be suitable for testing 
all types of infant restraints, and be able to provide test results 
that assess the performance of the restraint in the real world. The 
agency will consider a test procedure for incorporation into Standard 
213 as soon as a suitable one is developed.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the 
impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, and has determined 
that it is not ``significant'' under them. NHTSA has prepared a 
regulatory evaluation for this action which discussed the potential 
costs, benefits and other impacts of this rule. A copy of this 
evaluation has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking action. 
Interested persons may obtain copies of it by writing to the docket 
section at the address provided at the beginning of this notice.
    To briefly summarize the evaluation, NHTSA estimates that the 
consumer cost of the labeling requirements of this rule ranges from 
$0.09 to $0.17 per rear-facing infant restraint. The total annual cost 
for all infant restraints will range from $350,280 to $661,640. This 
cost is expected to be even smaller if the warning statement is placed 
on the existing FMVSS No. 213 label.
    The evaluation also estimates that, assuming that the warning is 
effective at preventing any placing of rear-facing restraints in air 
bag positions, 2 to 4 lives will be saved and 445 injuries will be 
reduced a year.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Of the 11 current child restraint manufacturers known to the 
agency (not counting vehicle manufacturers that produce and install 
built-in restraints) there are three that qualify as small businesses. 
This is not a substantial number of small entities. As to vehicle 
manufacturers that produce and install built-in restraints, most of 
those restraints are forward-facing restraints and are installed in a 
rear seating position. Further, those manufacturers are generally not 
considered small businesses.
    Regardless of the number of small entities, the rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on these entities. Infant restraints 
range in cost between $20 and $70, with the average price about $39. 
Convertible seats range in cost between $45 and $120, with the average 
price about $79. If the entire $0.17 cost of the rule were added to the 
cost of the restraint, the typical infant restraint will increase in 
price by only 0.44 percent and the typical convertible seat, by only 
0.22 percent. Small organizations and governmental jurisdictions might 
be affected by the rule if these entities procure child restraint 
systems for programs such as loaner programs. While the cost of the 
restraint could increase, loaner program procurements will not be 
significantly affected. A program that had a fixed amount of money for 
procuring child restraints will have its procurements reduced by only 
0.34 to 0.57 percent. Thus, regardless of the number of small 
organizations and governmental jurisdictions, NHTSA concludes the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on these entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The agency 
has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety 
Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety 
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not 
identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state 
requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to 
vehicles procured for the State's use. Section 105 of the Safety Act 
(15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final 
rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for 
reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may 
file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

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

PART 571--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 571.213  [Amended]

    2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S5.5.2(k) and adding 
S5.6.1.8, to read as follows:


Sec. 571.213  Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * *
    (k) In the case of each child restraint system that can be used in 
a rear-facing position, the following statements:
    (i) Either ``PLACE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION 
WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT,'' or ``PLACE THIS INFANT RESTRAINT IN A 
REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT IN THE VEHICLE,'' and,
    (ii) Either of the following statements, as appropriate, on a red, 
orange or yellow contrasting background, and placed on the restraint so 
that it is on the side of the restraint designed to be adjacent to the 
front passenger door of a vehicle and is visible to a person installing 
the rear-facing child restraint system in the front passenger seat:
    Warning: When your baby's size requires that this restraint be used 
so that your baby faces the rear of the vehicle, place the restraint in 
a vehicle seat that does not have an air bag.
or

    Warning: Place this restraint in a vehicle seat that does not have 
an air bag.
* * * * *
    S5.6.1.8  In the case of each child restraint system that can be 
used in a position so that it is facing the rear of the vehicle, the 
instructions shall provide a warning against using rear-facing 
restraints at seating positions equipped with air bags, and shall 
explain the reasons for, and consequences of not following the warning. 
The instructions shall also include a statement that owners of vehicles 
with front passenger side air bags should refer to their vehicle 
owner's manual for child restraint installation instructions.

    Issued on February 8, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-3252 Filed 2-14-94; 10:00 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M