[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30696-30700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12801]



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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 41]
RIN 2127-AF46


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule, and a companion proposed rule issued by 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), address the use of child 
harnesses and backless child restraints in aircraft. This document 
proposes to amend a provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' that permits those restraints to 
be certified for use in both motor vehicles and aircraft.
    Under the current FAA regulations, aircraft-certified child 
restraints may be used on aircraft. However, because testing has raised 
concerns about the safety of using harnesses and backless child 
restraint systems on the types of seats found in aircraft, FAA is 
publishing, in today's Federal Register, an NPRM that would prohibit 
the use of booster seats, and vest- and harness-type child restraint 
systems on aircraft even if they are certified for aircraft use.
    NHTSA is, in turn, concerned that if FAA were to ban harnesses and 
backless booster seats from being used on aircraft, continuing to 
permit the certification of those restraints for aircraft use could be 
confusing to the public. Accordingly, this document proposes to require 
manufacturers to label these restraints as not being for aircraft use.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by the agency no 
later than July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number 
and be submitted in writing to: Docket Section, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5267. Docket hours are 9:30 
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Office of 
Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone 202-366-4919), or Ms. Deirdre 
Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel (202-366-2992), National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 
20590. For information on FAA's proposal, contact Ms. Donell Pollard 
(AFS-203), Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service 
(telephone 202-267-3735), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to amend the 
provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child 
Restraint Systems,'' that permits child restraint systems to be 
certified for use in both motor vehicles and aircraft. This rule 
complements an FAA proposal, published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register, that would prohibit the use of booster seats, and vest- and 
harness-type child restraint systems on aircraft even if the restraints 
are certified for aircraft use.
    The types of child restraint systems that are the subject of this 
NPRM are harnesses and backless child restraints. A harness typically 
consists of a vest or a series of straps that form a vest-like garment, 
that attaches at the back of the harness to a vehicle seat's lap belt. 
Harnesses are generally intended for children who weigh from 25 to 50 
pounds, and some require the use of a tether strap to supplement the 
lap belt. A backless child restraint system is a type of child booster 
seat that has a structural element (typically a shield) designed to 
restrain forward motion of the child's torso in a frontal crash. 
Backless child restraint systems are generally intended for children 
weighing from 30 to 60 pounds. [[Page 30697]] (``Backless child 
restraint system'' is defined in S4 of FMVSS 213; see, 59 FR 37167, 
July 21, 1994). Backless child restraint systems are also known as 
``backless booster seats'' or ``shield-type'' booster seats.

Background

    Standard 213 permits manufacturers to certify their restraints 
1 for aircraft use if they are certified for use in motor vehicles 
and meet an additional requirement, an inversion test. The provisions 
permitting such certification were added to the standard in 1984 (49 FR 
34357; August 30, 1984), partly in response to suggestions of the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that DOT simplify its 
standards for the performance of child restraints on aircraft by 
combining all technical requirements into a single standard (NTSB 
Safety Recommendations A-83-1, February 24, 1983). Prior to the 
amendment, FAA had its own child restraint standard, Technical Standard 
Order C100 (TSO C100). TSO C100 and FMVSS 213 had different performance 
requirements, methods of certification and testing procedures.

    \1\ One type of child restraint, the ``belt positioning'' 
booster seat, is not eligible for such certification. These 
restraints, which are intended for use by children weighing from 30 
to 60 pounds, are designed for use with a lap/shoulder belt system. 
FMVSS No. 213 does not permit these restraints to be certified for 
aircraft use because aircraft passenger seats typically lack 
shoulder belts. See amendment of FMVSS 213 to permit manufacture of 
belt-positioning child seats (59 FR 37167; July 21, 1994). In its 
NPRM, the FAA proposes to ban the use of belt-positioning booster 
seats on airplanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 1984 rulemaking, NHTSA and FAA concluded that the DOT child 
restraint requirements should be consolidated in FMVSS 213 and that a 
TSO C100 inversion test was the only performance requirement from the 
FAA standard that needed to be incorporated into FMVSS 213. In the 
inversion test, the combination of a child restraint, test dummy and 
aircraft passenger seat is rotated to an inverted position and held 
there. During the test, the child restraint must not experience any 
failure or deformation that could seriously injure or prevent the 
subsequent removal of the occupant.
    Prior to the 1984 rulemaking, a manufacturer wishing to designate a 
child restraint model as suitable for aircraft had to submit 
information to FAA to obtain its approval of the model. As a result of 
this pre-1984 approval process, there was a disparity between the 
number of child restraints available for use in motor vehicles and the 
number available for use in aircraft. In 1984, approximately 28 models 
of child restraints were produced under FMVSS 213 for use in motor 
vehicles. The child restraint manufacturers obtained TSO authorizations 
for only five of the 28 models, or only 16 percent of the total 
production of child restraints.
    The lack of FAA approval of most motor vehicle child restraints for 
use in aircraft aroused several safety concerns. One was that some 
families traveling by air were discouraged from taking unapproved child 
restraints with them and thus did not have them available for use at 
their destination to protect their children while the family was 
driving. The other concern was that those families who nevertheless 
took their unapproved child restraints on trips had to stow the 
restraints in the aircraft cargo compartment, and thus were not able to 
use them to protect their children during the flight.
    The effect of the 1984 rulemaking was to speed certification of 
child restraints for use in aircraft, and thereby increase the 
availability of aircraft-certified child restraints. Since then, 
manufacturers have been able, under FMVSS 213, to ``self-certify'' 
their child restraints for aircraft use by ensuring that they pass all 
of the standard's motor vehicle requirements and the inversion test. As 
a result, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of child 
restraints certified for use in aircraft.
    FAA complemented NHTSA's rulemaking by amending its Federal 
Aviation Regulations (FARs) (14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135) to 
provide for the in-flight use of aircraft-certified child restraints. 
The amendments required the air carriers to allow the use of any child 
restraint having a labeling indicating that it is certified to FMVSS 
213, manufactured under the standards of the United Nations, or 
approved by a foreign government, as long as the restraint can be 
secured to a forward-facing passenger seat. An infant or child who is 
accompanied by a parent, guardian, or properly designated attendant and 
who is properly placed in a device that meets the labeling requirements 
of the FARs and that, in turn, is properly secured in an approved 
aircraft seat using the safety belt, has been considered by FAA to 
comply with its regulations requiring each person to occupy an approved 
seat during takeoff and landing.
    There are currently many different types of child restraint systems 
that are certified as complying with FMVSS 213's motor vehicle and 
aircraft requirements, and thus permitted by FAA for use on aircraft. 
In addition to harnesses and shield boosters, these systems included 
``infant seats,'' which position an infant so that the baby faces 
toward the rear of the motor vehicle or aircraft; ``car beds,'' which 
position the child laterally across the vehicle or aircraft seat; and 
``convertible'' child seats, which convert so that they can be used 
rear-facing with infants and forward-facing with toddlers. In addition, 
there are restraint systems, such as the ``belly belt,'' that are 
certified for use in airplanes by foreign countries. Belly belts 
restrain a small child on the lap of an adult and consist of a short 
loop of webbing with buckle hardware on the ends. The belt is buckled 
around the child's abdomen and is secured to the adult's safety belt by 
routing the adult's safety belt through a small loop of webbing sewn on 
the belly belt. Belly belts are certified for airplane use by the Civil 
Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom. However, belly belts cannot 
meet the performance requirements of FMVSS 213 and therefore have not 
been certified for use in the United States.

FAA Withdrawal of Approval
    Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, FAA is proposing to withdraw 
approval for the use of harnesses and booster seats on aircraft. The 
FAA is also emphasizing the existing prohibition in all aircraft 
against the use of lap held child restraints, including belly belts. 
The action responds to recent research by FAA's Civil Aeromedical 
Institute (CAMI). The practical effect of that amendment would be to 
ban all use of these restraints on aircraft.
    The CAMI research is discussed in a report entitled, ``The 
Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane Passenger 
Seats,'' a copy of which has been placed in the NHTSA rulemaking docket 
for this notice. (Persons wishing to obtain a copy of the report should 
contact FAA at the address given in the ``For Further Information'' 
section at the beginning of this final rule document.) CAMI dynamically 
tested six types of restraining devices: Child harnesses, booster 
seats, rear-facing infant seats, convertible child restraint systems, 
airplane seat lap belts, and belly belts. The first four devices were 
evaluated for their ability to fit and adjust to an airplane passenger 
seat and lap belt. The lap belt was evaluated for its ability to secure 
test dummies representative of children two and three years old. Fit 
and adjustment was not considered an issue for the installation of the 
belly belt. All of the devices were evaluated for their performance in 
aircraft seats with and without ``breakover'' seat backs (a breakover 
feature allows the seat back to rotate forward easily when impacted by 
an occupant from behind). [[Page 30698]] They were also evaluated, 
using anthropomorphic test dummies representing children, for their 
ability to limit occupant head excursion, head and chest acceleration 
and abdominal forces. In addition, the test program evaluated the 
effect that the impact load of an ``aft row occupant'' had on the 
performance of a child restraint located in an aircraft seat 
immediately in front of the aft row occupant. The aft row occupant 
impact load was generated in tests called ``double row tests,'' using 
an adult test dummy placed in the aft row seat.

Booster Seat Tests

    CAMI tested four models of shield-type booster seats in six dynamic 
tests, three of which involved single row tests, and the other three, 
double row tests. With regard to fit and adjustment of the booster 
seats to the airplane seat, CAMI found that three had fit and 
adjustment problems. One booster seat had problems fitting an airplane 
seat because of the limited width between arm rests on the passenger 
seat. This may have occurred because of the difference in width between 
the representative aircraft seat (about 20 inches wide) used in FMVSS 
213 and the aircraft seat (17.25 inches wide) used in the CAMI testing. 
Two booster seats had incompatibility problems between the buckle/
webbing path molded in the front shield and the airplane web path and 
buckle position of the lap belt on the airplane passenger seat used by 
CAMI. In fact, the webbing could not be installed over the front shield 
in accordance with the positioning instruction of the booster seats' 
manufacturers. CAMI also found that one of the four booster seats 
failed structurally, and two of the others allowed forward head 
excursion in excess of the 32-inch distance permitted by FMVSS 213.
    CAMI also found a problem with the loads that the child dummies 
restrained in the tested booster seats experienced when the boosters 
were on a seat with a breakover seat back and exposed to loads from the 
aft row occupant. Its tests showed that loads from an aft row adult 
occupant resulted in an increase in abdominal loading of the dummy in a 
booster seat, as compared to the abdominal loading of a dummy in an 
aircraft lap belt with an adult aft-row occupant. The CAMI study states 
that, when placed in a seat with a breakover seat back, the booster 
seat encounters problems because:

    With no back shell, the typical booster seat does not provide 
protection from the forces transmitted by the airplane seat back 
during horizontal impact conditions. Traditionally, restraint 
systems in airplanes have been designed to avoid loads transmitted 
to the soft tissues of the abdomen. A child restrained in a booster 
seat may be forced against the rigid shield due to the seat back 
breakover action. For the intended size of children in booster 
seats, the load path of these breakover forces may include the 
abdominal region.

    It is to be noted that CAMI also found that the abdominal loads on 
a child dummy placed in a shield-type booster seat secured to an 
airplane seat with a locked seat back were higher than on a child dummy 
secured in a typical airplane seat lap belt with a locked seat back. 
The FAA recognizes in its NPRM, however, that there are no accepted 
criteria to assess the relationship between differences in measured 
levels of abdominal loadings and any resulting risk of abdominal 
injury, and the type and severity of such injury.

Harness Tests

    CAMI tested one type of harness restraint. The restraint consisted 
of a torso vest with straps over the shoulders and around the waist, 
and a crotch strap. The shoulder and abdomen straps were attached to a 
rectangular metal plate on the back of the restraint. The airplane lap 
belts were routed through a loop of webbing attached to the metal back 
plate on the restraint.
    The restraint was tested with a three-year-old test dummy in two 
single row tests. CAMI found incompatibility problems between the 
harness and the airplane seat lap belts: ``With the lap belts adjusted 
to the minimum length, the [harness] could be moved forward 
approximately 7 inches before tension was developed in the belts. This 
was considered unsatisfactory for testing.'' CAMI also found grossly 
excessive excursion of the child anthropomorphic test dummy(ATD) 
restrained in the harness:

    The ATD moved forward and over the front edge of the seat 
cushion and proceeded to submarine toward the floor. Elasticity in 
the webbing of the harness and the lap belts then heaved the ATD 
rearward. The force pulling the ATD back into the seat appeared to 
be applied by the Gz [crotch] strap directly through the pubic 
symphysis of the pelvic bone.

    Based on this finding, CAMI concluded that a harness performs 
poorly in protecting the child occupant.

NHTSA Proposal

    NHTSA has tentatively concluded that, if FAA were to adopt its 
proposed ban on the use of harnesses and backless booster seats on 
aircraft, consumers would be confused if manufacturers were to continue 
nevertheless to certify these types of restraints for aircraft use. 
Accordingly, NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS 213 to require manufacturers 
to label these child restraint systems as not being for use on 
aircraft. The standard already requires that belt-positioning booster 
seats be so labeled.
    In issuing this proposal, NHTSA believes that it is important to 
emphasize several points about the use and performance of child 
restraints. First, there are significant differences between the 
seating environment of motor vehicles and that of aircraft. Second, 
because of those differences, the problems encountered with child 
restraint use in aircraft are not encountered with child restraint use 
in motor vehicles. Therefore, notwithstanding this proposal, the use of 
harnesses and booster seats in motor vehicles continues to be important 
for child safety.
    The problems reported by CAMI, i.e., the combined effects of 
aircraft seatback breakover designs and aft occupant impacts, are not 
encountered in motor vehicles. The seat back in a motor vehicle is 
designed to remain fixed in a crash and not ``breakover'' in the manner 
of an airplane seat. Also, a vehicle seat containing a child restraint 
is less likely to be impacted from the rear by an adult than is an 
aircraft containing a child restraint. There are several reasons for 
this. First, child restraints are recommended for use in the rear 
vehicle seating positions. Thus, if a child restraint is installed as 
recommended, there will not, in most cases, be any passenger rearward 
of the child restraint who could impact and load the seat containing 
the child restraint in the event of a frontal crash. Exceptions would 
be in vehicles, such as vans and some station wagons, which have three 
rows of seats. Second, if there were a passenger seated behind the seat 
containing a child restraint, and that person were sitting in an 
outboard seating position, the person would have a lap/shoulder belt 
system available for use. Most aircraft lack shoulder belts. If the 
vehicle passenger were restrained by that belt system, the person would 
not load the seat with the child restraint in the manner observed in 
the CAMI study. Third, given the number of persons typically carried in 
a motor vehicle, it is unlikely there would be an adult seated behind a 
child in a child restraint, regardless of the number or pattern of 
seats in the vehicle.
    Further, harnesses and other child restraints are tested under 
FMVSS 213 on a seat assembly that is representative of a motor vehicle 
seat, and that is equipped with a safety belt 
[[Page 30699]] representative of the lap belt in the center rear 
seating position. In its compliance testing, the agency has not found a 
problem between the vehicle lap belt and a child harness such as that 
found by CAMI between an airplane lap belt and a harness. In addition, 
NHTSA has not found in its compliance testing the type of fit and 
adjustment problems between booster seats and the vehicle seats that 
CAMI found between booster seats and the aircraft seats.
    Booster seats could fit better on vehicles than aircraft in part 
because of the design of the belt restraints with which the boosters 
are attached to the vehicle. The position of the buckle for an aircraft 
seat belt assembly is very different from that of a buckle for a 
vehicle seat belt assembly. An aircraft seat belt assembly is designed 
so that when it is buckled, the buckle is located midway between the 
anchorages, in front of the user's abdomen. A motor vehicle lap/
shoulder belt or lap-only belt is designed so that the buckle is 
located to the side of the user's torso, near the hip, when the belt is 
buckled.
    Another reason for believing that the problems reported by CAMI are 
not indicative of the performance of child restraints in motor vehicles 
is the difference between the crash pulse used by CAMI and the crash 
pulse used in FMVSS 213 testing. In its testing of head excursion, head 
and chest acceleration and abdominal forces, CAMI used a crash pulse 
appropriate for aircraft. FMVSS 213 testing, by contrast, involves the 
use of a motor vehicle crash pulse.
    In view of the problems revealed by the CAMI testing, NHTSA and FAA 
will consider whether there is a need for future rulemaking to improve 
FMVSS 213's requirements for aircraft-certified child restraints other 
than harnesses and booster seats. The agencies are developing possible 
requirements and procedures that could improve the assessment of the 
performance of child restraint systems in the aircraft environment. 
Among other issues, the agencies will consider whether the seat 
assembly used under FMVSS 213 in testing child restraints for aircraft 
use sufficiently represents an aircraft passenger seat. Child 
restraints certified as complying with FMVSS 213's aircraft 
requirements are currently tested on a ``representative aircraft 
passenger seat'' (S7.3 of FMVSS 213). FMVSS 213 also specifies that FAA 
approved aircraft safety belts are used to test child restraints that 
are certified to the aircraft requirements.

Proposed Effective Date

    The proposed effective date is 90 days after the publication of a 
final rule in the Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    NHTSA has evaluated the impacts of this proposal and has determined 
that it is significant within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The rulemaking 
action is significant because of the substantial public interest in 
issues involving child seats on aircraft. This rule is a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
    While this action is significant because of the public interest 
associated with it, NHTSA tentatively concludes that a rule resulting 
from this notice would have minimal impacts. In 1991, there were an 
estimated 1,200,000 booster seats produced. The consumer cost of a 
label is estimated to be $0.09 to $0.17, and total annual costs of a 
separate label range from $108,000 to $204,000. However, adding a 
sentence to the existing label, most likely the course of action taken 
in response to this rulemaking, would cost much less. This cost might 
be $0.01 per label, resulting in a total annual cost of $12,000. There 
is an added economic benefit of this proposed rule. Since booster seats 
would no longer be permitted to be certified for aircraft, there would 
be no need to perform the inversion test. Thus, testing costs to the 
child restraint manufacturer would be slightly reduced.
    The agency is concerned whether this rulemaking action could affect 
consumers' use of booster seats before and after the air portion of 
their trips. In the 1984 rulemaking that allowed child restraints to be 
certified for use on motor vehicles and aircraft, NHTSA recognized that 
parents might not use child restraints to transport their children to 
and from the airport if the child restraint could not be used on the 
aircraft. The data indicated that child safety was not a critical issue 
for aircraft in terms of the number of child deaths, but that it was a 
large problem for motor vehicles before and after the flight. Many 
State laws that require the use of child seats in motor vehicles do not 
cover all the ages of children that might use booster seats. If booster 
seats may not be used on aircraft, and if parents are not willing to 
stow them with their luggage, NHTSA is concerned about the possibility 
that they could be left home altogether. As a result, the number of 
child injuries in motor vehicle accidents might increase. NHTSA 
requests comments on how it should assess this issue. The agency is 
particularly interested in information concerning how many of these 
booster seats are currently in use and on the availability of booster 
seats at car rental agencies.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposal under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule, if 
adopted, would 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 manufacturers of built-
in restraints), there are six that qualify as small businesses. This is 
not a substantial number of small entities. Regardless of the number of 
small entities, the proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on these entities. As noted above, the labeling costs associated 
with this rulemaking would be minimal. Further, the agency believes 
sales of booster seats would be minimally affected by this rulemaking, 
if at all. NHTSA believes almost all consumers decide to purchase a 
child restraint based on their intent to use the restraint in a motor 
vehicle, not in aircraft.

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 proposed rule would 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 would not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 
section 49 U.S.C. 30103, 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. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 
[[Page 30700]] 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.

Submission of Comments on This Proposal

    There is a 30-day comment period for this notice. The FAA provides 
a 30-day comment period for its proposal. NHTSA believes the comment 
period for the agencies' proposals should be identical since the two 
rulemaking actions complement each other. The comment period is shorter 
than 60 days so that FAA can expeditiously assess what action should be 
taken to address what that agency has tentatively concluded to be a 
possible safety problem.
    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed 
rule. It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated will be considered, and will be available for 
examination in the docket at the above address both before and after 
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing 
date will also be considered. Comments received too late for 
consideration in regard to the proposal will be considered as 
suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments will be available 
for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file relevant 
information as it becomes available in the docket after the closing 
date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine 
the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
Part 571 as set forth below.

PART 571--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 571.213 would be amended by revising S5.5.2(n) to read 
as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * * * *
    (n) Child restraint systems, other than belt-positioning seats, 
harnesses and backless child restraint systems, that are certified as 
complying with the provisions of section S8, shall be labeled with the 
statement ``This Restraint is Certified for Use in Motor Vehicles and 
Aircraft.'' Belt-positioning seats, harnesses and backless child 
restraint systems shall be labeled with the statement ``This Restraint 
is Not Certified for Use in Aircraft.'' The statement required by this 
paragraph shall be in red lettering and shall be placed after the 
certification statement required by paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    Issued on May 19, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-12801 Filed 6-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P