[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60206-60221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30362]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 103]
RIN 2127-AG14
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As one method of reducing the adverse effects of air bags,
especially for children, NHTSA is requiring new, attention getting
labels. This rule requires vehicles with air bags to bear three new
warning labels. Two of the labels replace existing labels on the sun
visor. The third is a temporary label on the dash. These new labels
would not be required on vehicles having a ``smart'' passenger-side air
bag, i.e., an air bag that would automatically shut off or adjust its
deployment so as not to adversely affect children. This rule also
requires rear-facing child seats to bear a new, enhanced warning label
to replace the existing label. The labels will help reduce the adverse
effects by increasing the number of people who read and understand the
message of the warning labels.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective
December 27, 1996.
Compliance Dates: Passenger cars, light trucks, and vans that are
equipped with passenger air bags that do not qualify as ``smart'' air
bags that are manufactured on or after February 25, 1997 must include
the new, attention- getting labels specified in this rule.
Child restraint systems that can be used in a rear-facing position
and are manufactured on or after May 27, 1997 must include the new,
attention-getting label specified in this rule.
Manufacturers may voluntarily substitute the new labels for the
currently required labels prior to these dates.
Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received
by NHTSA no later than Janaury 13, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590:
For non-legal issues: Mary Versailles, Office of Safety Performance
Standards, NPS-31, telephone (202) 366-2057, facsimile (202) 366-4329,
electronic mail ``[email protected]''.
For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail
``[email protected]''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Currently Required and Proposed Vehicle Labels
A. Labels on Sun Visor
B. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or on Door Panel
C. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel
III. Current and Proposed Labels for Rear-Facing Child Seats
IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal
V. Focus Groups
VI. General Issues Applicable to All Labels
A. Vehicles with Smart Passenger-Side Air Bags or Manual Cutoff
Switches for Passenger-Side Air Bags
B. Flexibility
C. Headings
D. Color
E. Pictogram
VII. Sun Visor Alert Label
VIII. Sun Visor Warning Label
[[Page 60207]]
IX. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or on Door Panel
X. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel
XI. Child Seat Label
XII. Letters to Owners of Existing Vehicles
XIII. Leadtime and Costs
XIV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. National Environmental Policy Act
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
F. Civil Justice Reform
I. Background
On August 6, 1996, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) on Standard No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,'' (49 CFR
571.208) and Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' (49 CFR
571.213). The NPRM proposed several amendments to these standards to
reduce the adverse effects of air bags, especially those on children.
One of the proposed steps involved new, attention-getting warning
labels for vehicles without smart passenger-side air bags \1\ and for
rear-facing child seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NPRM identified three types of smart passenger-side air
bags: (1) systems that provide an automatic means to ensure that the
air bag does not deploy when a child seat or a child with a total
mass of 30 kg or less is present on the front outboard passenger
seat, (2) systems using sensors, other than or in addition to weight
sensors, which automatically prevent the air bag from deploying in
situations where it might have an adverse effect on children, and
(3) systems designed to deploy in a manner that does not create a
risk of serious injury to children very near the bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Current and Proposed Vehicle Labels
NHTSA's current vehicle labeling requirements for vehicles with air
bags require the following information, coupled with the signal phrase
``CAUTION, TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY:,'' to be labeled on the sun visors:
For maximum safety protection in all types of crashes, you must
always wear your safety belt.
Do not install rearward-facing child restraints in any front
passenger seat position.
Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag.
Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag
and yourself.
See the owner's manual for further information and explanations.
The standard allows the word ``WARNING'' to be used in lieu of
``CAUTION.'' In addition, the owner's manual must include appropriate
additional information in each of these areas. The coloring of the
lettering must contrast with the background of the label. No minimum
size dimensions are specified.
In addition, NHTSA requires an ``air bag alert label'' if the sun
visor warning label is not visible when the sun visor is in its stowed
position. The air bag alert label can either be on the air bag cover or
on the side of the sun visor visible when the visor is in the stowed
position. To the best of the agency's knowledge, to date, all
manufacturers have placed the alert label on the visible side of the
sun visor. This alert label must read, ``Air bag. See other side.''
Again, the coloring of the lettering must contrast with the background
of the label. No minimum size dimensions are specified.
NHTSA proposed four new labels for vehicles without smart
passenger-side air bags. Two of the proposed labels would replace the
currently required labels. One of the new labels would be a permanent
label on the passenger-side end of the vehicle dash or on the adjacent
area of the door panel. The other new label would be a temporary label
on the middle of the vehicle dash.
A. Labels on Sun Visor
NHTSA proposed to enhance the warning labels currently required on
sun visors for vehicles which lack smart passenger-side air bags. The
current warning labels on sun visors would no longer be required. In
their place, enhanced alert labels and warning labels would be
required. Manufacturers would continue to be permitted to provide a
warning label only, if that label is visible when the sun visor is in
its stowed position.
For the alert label, NHTSA proposed to require that a new permanent
label be affixed to the side of the visor that is visible when the
visor is in its stowed position. The label would be required on that
side of the visor above every seating position equipped with an air
bag. The label would have a black background. On the left side of the
proposed alert label would be a pictogram showing an inflating air bag
striking a rear-facing child seat, with a red slash through that. On
the right side of the proposed alert label would be yellow letters
reading ``AIR BAG WARNING.'' Underneath that warning, in much smaller
yellow letters, would appear text reading ``FLIP VISOR OVER.'' The
agency proposed that all the new labels, including the alert label, be
at least at least 140 mm long and 65 mm high. However, NHTSA asked for
comments on labels that were 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of
the proposed size.
For the warning label to be permanently affixed on the side of the
visor visible when the visor was turned down in the deployed position
(unless the manufacturer chooses to place the warning label on the side
of the visor visible in its stowed position), NHTSA proposed there
would be a white pictogram on a black background in the lower left
corner of this label. The pictogram would be a representation of a
belted adult occupant in front of a deploying air bag. The background
for the rest of the proposed label would be yellow. In red across the
top of the label would appear a triangle with an exclamation mark
inside it followed by the word ``WARNING'' in large type. In smaller
red type beneath that heading, the phrase ``Severe injury or death can
occur'' would appear. Beneath that, in black type, would appear the
phrase ``Air bags need room to inflate.'' Beneath that, the proposed
label would have had four bullets in black type reading:
Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front.
Unbelted children can be killed by the air bag.
Don't sit close to the air bag.
Always use seat belts.
For vehicles with a manual cutoff switch, the first bullet on the
label for the stowed side of the sun visor would be modified to read
``Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front UNLESS the air bag is
off.''
The agency also proposed to carry forward the current prohibition
against sun visors showing any other information about air bags or the
need to wear seat belts, except for air bag maintenance information and
the utility vehicle label required by NHTSA's consumer information
regulations. Finally, the agency asked whether a sun visor label should
be required for vehicles with smart passenger-side air bags.
B. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or on Door Panel
NHTSA currently has no requirements for any safety labels in these
locations. However, the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) has a proposed label featuring a pictogram showing a rear-facing
child seat positioned in front of an air bag, with a red slash through
the visual. The proposed location is on the passenger-side end of the
dash, which is visible only when the passenger door is opened. An
alternative location is on the door panel in a location that is also
visible only when the door is opened.
NHTSA proposed to require a label either on the passenger-side end
of the dash or on the door panel, for vehicles which lack smart
passenger-side air bags. The proposed label would have
[[Page 60208]]
been identical to the label proposed for child seats (see below in
section III). It would be a permanent label with the same minimum
dimensions, the same yellow and red colors, and the same content,
including the visual with the red slash through it. If the vehicle had
a manual cutoff switch for the passenger air bag, the label would be
modified to read ``Danger! Do not place rear-facing child seat on front
seat with air bag UNLESS the air bag is off.''
C. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel
NHTSA currently has no requirements for a safety label in this
location. The label NHTSA proposed was a very visible label to be
placed in the middle of the dash of all new vehicles equipped with air
bags, if they lack smart passenger-side air bags. However, this label
would have been permitted to be readily removable. If removable, the
label would have been required on new vehicles when they are delivered
to consumers, but could have then been removed by consumers after they
have had a chance to read it. As proposed, the top half of this label
would have a yellow background with the phrase ``Make sure all children
wear seat belts'' in red type. The bottom half of this label would have
a white background. In black type, the bottom half of the proposed
label would say, ``Unbelted children and children in rear-facing child
seats may be KILLED or INJURED by passenger-side air bag.'' To make the
proposed label as effective as possible, the signal word ``WARNING''
would be placed at the beginning of the label to highlight the
importance of the message.
III. Current and Proposed Labels on Rear-Facing Child Seats
NHTSA currently requires a warning to be labeled on each child
restraint that can be used in a rear-facing position. Specifically,
S5.5.2(k)(ii) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR
571.213) requires:
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.
NHTSA proposed to move and enhance the warning label currently
required on child restraint systems that can be used in a rear-facing
position. As proposed, a new permanent label would be affixed to each
child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position. The
label would be located in the area where a child's head would rest.
This new label would have a yellow background for the text portion. On
that yellow background, there would first appear a heading in red that
said ``DANGER!'' Under that heading, the text of the proposed label
would appear in black as:
DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on a vehicle seat with air
bag.
DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur.
Opposite the text, this warning label would have a pictogram showing an
inflating air bag striking a rear-facing child seat, with a red slash
through that.
IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal
Over 50 of the comments received in response to the NPRM addressed
labeling issues. Except for General Motors (GM), vehicle manufacturers
were not strongly opposed to the concept of labels. However, nearly all
manufacturers asked NHTSA to specify the exact language and content of
labels, but to allow flexibility in other areas. Manufacturers also
raised concerns about adhesive residue from the temporary label and
leadtime.
In general, child seat manufacturers had stronger objections to the
labeling proposal, feeling that they and child seat purchasers would
bear a disproportionate share of the economic burden when the air bag,
not the child seat, was the hazard. Some child seat manufacturers
expressed concerns with the proposed location for the label, citing
visibility, durability, and child comfort concerns. Some child seat
manufacturers also were concerned that the proposed format and location
might falsely lead users to conclude that this warning was more
important than other warnings.
Insurance groups, consumer advocacy groups, and parents generally
supported more conspicuous labels. Some of these commenters felt the
proposed labels were not conspicuous enough. Some of these commenters
also were concerned that proposed labels did not make it clear that all
children should be in the rear seat.
Finally, comments were received concerning harmonization with a
proposed symbol from the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) and with the series of Z535 standards from the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI).
V. Focus Groups
The labels proposed in the NPRM were developed in part based on the
results of six focus groups the agency conducted in March 1996. GM in
particular criticized the agency's reliance on the results of focus
groups. GM requested an analysis of the proposed labels from Dr. Jane
T. Welch, a human factors and communications consultant, and attached a
copy of her report to the GM comment. The report states, ``NHTSA has
seen fit to toss aside 20 years of research in favor of the opinions of
54 naive lay people.''
Much of GM's criticism of the labeling proposal is an incorrect
impression that NHTSA believes improved labels guarantee that all
people would act correctly in response to the warning. Dr. Welch
referred to 20 years of human factors studies reportedly demonstrating
that warning labels on products have produced ``very little reduction
in accident rates.'' NHTSA does not believe that labels by themselves
will solve the adverse effects of air bags. In its August 6 proposal,
NHTSA acknowledged that no label works perfectly for all people and
that different people prefer different label concepts. However, even if
GM and Dr. Welch are correct in their assertion that labels will
produce only a ``very little'' reduction in fatalities and injuries,
NHTSA believes it should do all it can to present a ``warning'' message
frequently and prominently so as to achieve whatever reduction is
possible.
Further, the agency stated in the August 6 proposal that it had
used the ``focus groups with the aim of designing a label which would
improve substantially the likelihood that people will read the label
and understand its message.'' NHTSA recognized that even if motorists
received the message, there was not any assurance that people would act
on the message. GM and Dr. Welch concede that some people will act on
the message. The agency has used focus groups to help ensure the label
will be conspicuous enough to attract more people's attention and the
message will be clear and powerful enough to increase the likelihood
that more people will act in accordance with the message.
Finally, NHTSA appreciates the inputs from GM and other commenters
about the content of the labels. The agency has used the public's
inputs to help it modify and better define the message these labels
will convey. NHTSA agrees that human factors knowledge is extremely
valuable in deciding whether a label can be used to
[[Page 60209]]
help address a problem and what the message and purpose of the label
should be. However, once these decisions have been made, NHTSA believes
that focus groups are a valid and helpful technique to see if a
proposed label design is effective; i.e., whether the label design
succeeds in attracting the user's attention and whether the label
clearly conveys the intended message.
Consistent with this belief, NHTSA has conducted six more focus
groups in three cities to test consumer reaction to fine tuning changes
suggested by the comments on the proposed labels. The contractor's
final report on the second focus group study has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking. What follows is a brief overview of the
second study.
Focus groups were conducted in San Diego, CA on October 29, 1996,
in Chicago, IL on October 30, 1996, and in Baltimore, MD on November 4,
1996. The study involved six focus groups. The Baltimore, MD groups
each had eight participants, the San Diego groups each had nine
participants, and the Chicago groups had nine and ten participants, for
a total of 53 participants. The composition of the groups reflected the
population as a whole in terms of gender, ethnic background, and level
of education. All participants had at least one child under 13, made
several trips per week with one or more children in the car, drove at
least 7,500 miles per year, were 25-45 years of age, had no connection
with the automotive industry or with market research, and had not
participated in a focus group during the preceding six months.
The focus groups lasted approximately two hours. The first half-
hour of each focus group was spent discussing their current actions and
beliefs regarding children riding in cars, use of seat belts, air bags,
and awareness of any warning labels currently in vehicles. Most of the
remaining time was devoted to evaluating three different sets of
prototype labels. The San Diego and Chicago groups evaluated a total of
12 labels, while the Baltimore groups evaluated a total of 15 labels.
For the sun visor warning label, the San Diego and Chicago groups
evaluated the currently required label, the proposed label, and three
new labels based on the comments. The new labels used the proposed
pictogram, the ISO pictogram, and a pictogram included in Chrysler's
comments. The colors tested were the colors specified in the ANSI
standards (see below), except that both yellow and orange headings were
tested. The text of the new labels was also revised from the proposal.
The Baltimore group also evaluated two additional labels, based on
results from the first two focus groups. One of the these labels had
the heading in red on a yellow background. This color combination was
preferred by both the San Diego and Chicago focus groups instead of the
heading in black on the yellow background, as specified by ANSI
labeling guidelines. Both of these additional labels had new, more
specific text.
For the temporary label on the middle of the dash, the groups
evaluated the proposed label and three new labels. The colors of the
new labels were those specified in the ANSI standards, except that both
yellow and orange headings were tested. The text of the new labels was
also revised. The text of one of the new labels was further modified
for the Baltimore group to give more specific advice concerning the age
below which children are at special risk from deploying air bags.
For the child seat label, the San Diego and Chicago groups
evaluated the proposed label and two new labels. The new labels include
the new pictograms and the new color combinations of the previous
labels, and revised text. The Baltimore group tested an additional new
label with an all yellow background.
In general, there were not major differences among the six groups.
Generally, the members were well-informed and very interested in
automobile safety. Every group had heard that the rear seat was the
safest place for children. Almost every participant had heard of the
dangers to children from air bags. However, the groups did indicate
that most of their information was from the media and that they were
interested in obtaining information from the government and the motor
vehicle industry. The participants indicated that they would be very
interested in receiving clear, unambiguous statements of the risks from
the government and industry, along with guidance on how to minimize
those risks. The reactions of the focus groups to specific labels or
label features are discussed later in this notice.
VI. General Issues Applicable to all Labels
A. Vehicles With Smart Passenger-Side Air Bags or Manual Cutoff
Switches for Passenger-Side Air Bags
As an incentive for vehicle manufacturers to equip their vehicles
with smart passenger-side air bags, the agency proposed to limit the
requirement for the new labels to vehicles lacking such air bags.
The public comments focused on the proposed definition for ``smart
passenger air bag.'' A definition is needed if the labeling requirement
is to be limited to vehicles without smart bags. Many commenters argued
that the proposed definition was not specific enough, and that test
procedures should be specified. IIHS, however, stated that the agency
should not develop a definition so as not to restrict developments in
technology. Commenters raised a variety of concerns about the portion
of the definition associated with weight suppression, which specified
that the air bag be suppressed ``when a child seat or child with a
total mass of 30 kg or less is present on the front outboard passenger
seat.'' GM, for example, argued that the definition is ambiguous and
does not provide sufficient information. That company stated that some
child seats and booster seats with children would exceed the 30 kg
minimum and that, assuming a 20 percent sensor error, a person with a
standing weight of 152 pounds could suppress the air bag. Various
commenters addressed the different levels of effectiveness that might
occur for simpler versus more advanced smart systems, and limitations
associated with simpler systems. AAMA expressed concern that use of the
term ``smart air bag'' could mislead the public into believing they
have no responsibility in the performance of restraint systems.
In the absence of significant adverse comments about excepting
vehicles with smart passenger-side air bags from the requirements for
new labels, the agency is adopting that exception. Absent any evidence
that warnings are necessary for vehicles with smart air bags, or what
those warnings would be, NHTSA is not specifying any warning labels for
vehicles with smart passenger-side air bags. Manufacturers may provide
any information or warnings that would be appropriate for their smart
air bag designs. NHTSA recognizes that the term ``smart air bag'' is
still very general. The issue of more specific criteria and other
issues relating to smart air bags will be addressed in a rulemaking in
the near future.
In recognition of the fact that some vehicles are currently
permitted to have manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side air
bag, NHTSA is specifying optional label language for those vehicles.
The absolute language about never placing a rear-facing child restraint
in the front seat is not necessary for a vehicle in which the
passenger-side air bag can be turned off.
[[Page 60210]]
The optional language for those vehicles is as follows: ``NEVER put a
rear-facing child seat in the front unless air bag is off.''
B. Flexibility
NHTSA's proposal would have required labels to conform in content,
format, size, and color to the proposed labels. Manufacturers agreed
that NHTSA should specify the label content and prohibit additional
labels. However, they asked for more flexibility in the areas of format
and size. Manufacturers also asked to be allowed to present the label
text not only in English, but also in other languages.
Generally, manufacturers asked for flexibility to rearrange the
information to fit tight spaces in the vehicle interior. For example,
manufacturers asked to be able to make the label vertical rather than
horizontal, with the pictogram above the message, or to round the
corners and make the label oval.
The purpose of the enhanced labels is to make them more noticeable
and more explicit. NHTSA believes that arrangement and shape of the
labels is irrelevant to these purposes, and therefore, is amending the
regulatory language to allow such changes.
The proposal specified rectangular labels with a minimum size of
140 x 65 mm. The NPRM asked for comments on labels that were 75%,
50%, and 25% of the proposed size. Most commenters said the proposed
labels were larger than needed to be more conspicuous than existing
labels, and larger than practicable, given space considerations at some
locations. A visor supplier and some vehicle manufacturers asked NHTSA
to specify a 75% label. One manufacturer asked for a 50% label. Other
manufacturers asked NHTSA to specify a minimum area for the pictogram
and a minimum area for text, to allow the manufacturer flexibility in
the overall shape and layout of the label.
NHTSA has re-examined the labels, and the proposed vehicle
locations for the labels, and agrees that there would be issues at some
locations about the sufficiency of the space for the placement of
labels of the proposed size. With the exception of the air bag alert
label discussed below, NHTSA has decided to reduce the size of the
labels to 75% of the proposed size because this size is still
conspicuous. Consistent with the above decision on format, NHTSA has
also decided to adopt the suggestion to specify the minimum areas of
the message text and pictogram only. To determine the size, NHTSA
measured the size of these areas on a label that was 75% of the
proposed size. Based on these measurements, NHTSA is specifying that
the pictogram must be a minimum of 30 mm in diameter, and the English
text must be minimum of 30 square cm.
With respect to the size of the text, NHTSA learned from the focus
groups that the public generally prefers larger fonts in label text
because it is easier to read. This helps ensure the labels will
effectively convey the message to the reader. NHTSA considered
mandating a minimum font size for the text, but has not done so for two
reasons. First, it is hard to specify a single font size that would
assure ease of reading with all possible typefaces. Second, NHTSA does
not think it is necessary to specify a regulatory requirement for font
size to assure that manufacturers will make the message large enough to
be easily read. The agency expects that manufacturers will ensure the
English text of each label fills the 30 square cm text area, instead of
using smaller font size and leaving most of the text area blank
(white).
NHTSA did not intend to reverse its current policy of allowing a
required message to be stated in additional languages once the required
English language message was provided. In a March 10, 1994 notice,
NHTSA stated:
NHTSA interprets the labeling requirements * * * as requiring
manufacturers to supply the information in English. Once this
requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same information in
other languages, so long as it does not confuse consumers. As long
as the non-English language label is a translation of the required
information, NHTSA does not interpret it to be ``other
information.'' (59 FR 11200, at 11201-202).
The proposed sun visor label language also included the prohibition
about ``other information.'' NHTSA would again not consider
translations of the required label message to be ``other information.''
However, all the requirements for the English label message must be
met, including size. The proposed provisions regarding the other
proposed labels did not include a prohibition against other
information; therefore, it would be permitted.
C. Headings
As proposed, three of the labels would use the word ``warning,''
while two (the label for the child seat and the end of the dash) would
use the word ``danger.'' Commenters pointed out that the labels should
use only one of these words. Other commenters asked to be allowed the
option to continue using either ``warning'' or ``caution.'' Two
commenters also asked for the agency to harmonize the proposed labels
with ANSI standards.
The ANSI standards specify the use of various words in the heading
of a label based on the degree of hazard and risk (ANSI Z535.4-1991,
section 4.15). The word ``danger'' should be used when there is an
imminent hazard that could result in death or serious injury. The word
``warning'' should be used when there is a potential hazard that could
result in death or serious injury. The word ``caution'' should be used
when there is a potential hazard that could result in minor or moderate
injury. The ANSI standards also specify that, when multiple hazards are
being addressed by a label, the word for the highest level of hazard
among those hazards should be used (ANSI Z535.4-1991, section 5.3).
Finally, the ANSI standards allow the use of an ``alert symbol'' in the
heading (ANSI Z535.4-1991, section 7.2). The symbol is a triangle with
an exclamation point inside, as shown on the proposed sun visor warning
label.
NHTSA originally allowed either ``warning'' or ``caution'' on the
current label because either word would achieve the goal of attracting
attention to the label (59 FR 11200, at 11202; March 10, 1994). NHTSA
continues to believe that the word choice for the heading will not
change the effectiveness of the label. However, a recent Federal law
encourages agencies to harmonize their standards with existing
standards (Pub.L. 104-113; March 7, 1996). One of the stated purposes
of the ANSI standards is ``to achieve application of a national uniform
system for the recognition of potential personal injury hazards for
those persons using products'' (ANSI Z535.4-1991, section 2.2). Given
the Federal law and this purpose, and absent strong evidence that
argues against following the ANSI standards, NHTSA has decided to
adhere to them with respect to the heading.
Under the ANSI standard, the hazards associated with air bags are
appropriately classified as potential hazards, since they only exist if
there is a crash of sufficient severity to cause the air bags to
deploy. For children, the risk associated with the hazard is clearly
death or serious injury. Therefore, NHTSA will require that all labels
use the word ``warning.'' NHTSA will also specify the use of the alert
symbol allowed by the ANSI standards (i.e., an exclamation mark inside
a triangle, preceding the text of the heading). Participants in the
recent focus groups noted that this symbol was very effective in
drawing attention to the label, and also made the warning appear more
official.
[[Page 60211]]
D. Color
Two commenters again asked NHTSA to harmonize the colors with the
ANSI standards (ANSI Z535.4, section 7). Commenters also raised
concerns about the readability of certain color combinations for
persons with vision difficulties. In particular, commenters noted that
black was easier to read than red on a yellow background, or that black
was easier to read on white background rather than a yellow background.
Other commenters, though, specifically stated that it was the
colorfulness of the proposed labels that contributed to their
effectiveness.
The ANSI standards specify that, when ``warning'' is used in the
heading, the background color should be orange, the text black, and the
alert symbol should be a black triangle with an orange exclamation
point. Pictograms should be black on white, with occasional uses of
color for emphasis. Message text should be black on white. The color
yellow used in NHTSA's proposed labels is associated with the word
``caution'' in the ANSI standards.
Yellow was the overwhelming color preference of the participants in
the focus groups. Only two of the 53 participants preferred orange.
Participants generally stated that yellow was more eye-catching than
orange. Participants also noted that red (stop) and yellow (caution)
had meaning to them, but not orange. Participants in San Diego and
Chicago preferred the red on yellow headings in some of the tested
labels, because they were very eye-catching. However, the participants
in Baltimore preferred the black headings, as recommended by ANSI, on a
yellow background, stating that this color combination was easier to
read. Participants in San Diego and Chicago also indicated that the all
yellow labels were more eye-catching than labels in which the message
text had a white background. However, the Baltimore participants
thought the all yellow labels were ``too much'' and suggested that the
color on the heading was sufficient to attract their attention.
NHTSA is requiring that all pictograms be black on a white
background with a red circle and slash. While some of the proposed
labels were white on black background, NHTSA believes that the two
versions are equally visible, and therefore, is harmonizing with the
ANSI standards. NHTSA is also requiring that the message text be black
on white. This color combination is consistent with ANSI standards.
NHTSA agrees this may be easier to read for some people.
However, NHTSA has decided not to follow the ANSI standards with
respect to the background color for the heading ``Warning.'' Instead of
the orange specified in the ANSI standards, NHTSA is requiring that
yellow be used as the background for the heading. The focus group
evidence overwhelmingly suggests that yellow would be a more effective
color than orange for attracting attention to the label. As noted
above, 51 participants said yellow was significantly more eye-catching
and effective than orange, while only 2 participants said orange was
more effective than yellow. NHTSA takes very seriously the importance
of making sure these labels do all they can to help avoid preventable
deaths. Given the importance of this task and the focus group results,
NHTSA has concluded that it should specify that the background color
for the header of these labels be yellow.
E. Pictogram
The proposed labels included two pictograms: one showing an adult
and an inflating air bag, and the other showing a rear-facing child
seat being impacted by an air bag surrounded by a red circle with a
slash across it. Commenters criticized the first pictogram for
representing an adult (instead of a child) and for the lack of a
visible shoulder belt. Transport Canada asked if the agency had
considered the proposed ISO pictogram for the child seat pictogram, and
asked if the agency would consider proposing its pictogram to ISO for
use internationally. Other commenters also asked the agency to
harmonize with the proposed ISO pictogram. Commenters criticized the
proposed child pictogram because there was too little of the vehicle to
give a context for the picture, because there was no visible seat belt,
and because the lines around the child's head looked like the rays of
the sun. Chrysler's comment included some suggested labels which used a
different, but similar, child pictogram. The Chrysler pictogram
modifies the proposed pictogram by showing more of the vehicle seat for
context, by having the child seat broken by the inflating air bag, and
by having the air bag bending around the child seat. Finally, many
commenters noted that the red slash went in different directions on
different labels and asked the agency to specify the standard upper
left-to-lower right orientation.
The participants in the second round of focus groups examined the
proposed child pictogram, the ISO pictogram, and the Chrysler
pictogram. The participants indicated that a pictogram was important to
attract attention, and that even a bad pictogram would get them to read
the label. The ISO pictogram was the least liked by these groups.
Participants indicated that it was too peaceful, and didn't convey a
sense of danger. One of the Chicago groups also indicated that the
pictogram was misleading, as it suggested that a fully inflated air bag
never touched a rear-facing child seat. Of the remaining two
pictograms, the Chrysler pictogram was preferred. However, some
participants found this pictogram too graphic and harsh. Others
indicated that it was one of the most effective pictograms they had
seen because it enabled the viewer to understand the harm without
reading the text. The one change suggested by the focus groups was to
increase the relative size of the child seat in the pictogram, similar
to the proposed pictogram.
Because the most serious air bag side effects relate to infants and
children, NHTSA is amending the labels to require a child (infant)
pictogram on all labels. However, at least one participant in five of
the six focus groups expressed concern that pictogram showing air bag
danger to infants in rear-facing child seats might imply that an air
bag poses no danger to children in forward-facing seats, booster seats,
or children using vehicle belts. These participants were concerned that
a pictogram focusing entirely on infants in rear-facing child seats
would mislead the public with regard to the hazards of current air bag
designs.
NHTSA agrees this is a legitimate concern. However, after further
agency analysis of this area, NHTSA has decided to keep a pictogram
showing an infant in a rear-facing child seat. First, it would place an
extraordinary burden on a pictogram to rely exclusively on it to show
all possible hazards instead of using the pictogram to communicate some
hazards and the accompanying text to communicate others. For instance,
the recognized symbol for ``no smoking'' shows a lit cigarette with a
red slash through it. One might misinterpret this symbol to mean no
cigarette smoking, but that smoking a cigar or a pipe is permitted by
the symbol. One of the participants in a Chicago focus group commented
that the concerns about the infant pictogram are demanding too much of
a pictogram. According to this participant, the job of the pictogram is
simply to attract the reader's interest and attention to the text of
the warning label.
NHTSA agrees with the participant's judgment that one significant
purpose of the pictogram is to attract the reader's attention. In
addition to this, NHTSA
[[Page 60212]]
expects a good pictogram to identify a significant portion of the
hazard and to depict that portion accurately. The agency concludes that
the pictogram showing the hazard posed by an air bag to a child in a
rear-facing child seat meets all of these purposes. While the pictogram
does not depict the larger group at risk, the focus groups all found
that the pictogram of the child in the rear-facing seat would be
effective at attracting people's attention to the label and getting
them to read the label. Again, based on the focus group results, NHTSA
believes the language of the labels makes it very clear that a larger
group of children are at risk.
NHTSA is not adopting the ISO pictogram for its label. NHTSA
thoroughly examined the ISO pictogram when developing the proposed
pictograms. NHTSA decided to propose its pictogram, which the agency
believes represents a significant improvement to the ISO pictogram by
making the diagram more dynamic and by depicting the harm more clearly.
NHTSA tested the ISO pictogram in its second round of focus groups and
found that only one out of 53 participants liked it. More
significantly, most of the participants did not understand what it was
attempting to show and most said it would not attract their attention
to the label. Given these results, NHTSA does not believe it would be
appropriate to use the ISO pictogram. NHTSA staff are involved with the
ISO committee working on this pictogram. The agency representatives
will suggest that the ISO committee consider replacing its current
pictogram with the pictogram NHTSA is requiring on its labels.
NHTSA was impressed by the pictogram included with the comment from
Chrysler, as were the recent focus groups. Participants in the focus
groups preferred the Chrysler pictogram by a substantial margin. Some
participants even said the Chrysler pictogram was ``perfect,'' and that
``you understand the problem before you've read one word of the
label.'' This was not a universally shared sentiment. Some participants
said the Chrysler pictogram was ``too harsh,'' ``too violent,'' and
``too scary.'' However, even those participants who said it was too
graphic agreed that it was very effective at drawing attention to the
label. Therefore, NHTSA is specifying this pictogram for use on the air
bag warning labels. In addition, this rule corrects the slash on the
air bag alert label pictogram so that it follows the standard
convention.
VII. Sun Visor Alert Label
NHTSA proposed an alert label for the side of the sun visor visible
when the visor is in the stowed position. A manufacturer did not have
to provide this label if the other proposed sun visor warning label
were placed by the manufacturer so that is visible when the visor is in
the stowed position. Ford commented that manufacturers would only use
one sun visor label unless the alert label were smaller than the
warning label. Manufacturers also pointed out that there were
additional size concerns with this side of the visor as it was the most
common location used for another mandatory warning label in utility
vehicles. Some manufacturers wanted to keep the current alert label.
NHTSA has decided that the alert label can be reduced to 50% of the
proposed size, rather than to 75% as for other labels. Because this
label has fewer words than other labels, it will still be very visible.
This should alleviate some of the concerns about space for other
required labels. In addition, because the new labels are so colorful,
NHTSA is concerned about public objections if manufacturers were to
place the warning label so that it was visible for extended periods of
time. To be consistent with other size changes, NHTSA is specifying
that the pictogram have a minimum diameter of 20 mm, and the text area
be no smaller than 20 square cm.
The new alert label replaces the current alert label. NHTSA
believes that the addition of the pictogram and the word ``warning,''
are more likely to attract the attention of vehicle occupants and
induce them to look for the label on the other side of the visor.
VIII. Sun Visor Warning Label
The proposed sun visor warning label stated, ``Unbelted children
can be killed by the air bag.'' Commenters said that this statement was
too narrow, since improperly belted, and perhaps even some properly
belted, children can be injured or killed by the air bag. The proposed
label stated, ``Never put a rear-facing child seat in the front.''
Again, commenters said this statement was too narrow, that all children
should be in the rear seat. The proposed label stated, ``Don't sit
close to the air bag.'' Commenters preferred the current statement,
``Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag,'' because
people may believe that it is unnecessary to worry about leaning or
being thrown forward so long as their seat is moved back from the air
bag. Finally, some commenters said that air bags have adverse effects
for adults and that the label placed too much emphasis on children.
NHTSA believes that many of the suggestions regarding wording
changes have merit, and is making some changes to the labels. NHTSA
tested some of the recommendations in the focus groups. After reviewing
the comments and the focus group results, NHTSA has decided that the
message of the new label will read:
DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur.
Children 12 and under can be killed by the air bag.
The BACK SEAT is the SAFEST place for children.
NEVER put a rear-facing child seat in the front.
Sit as far back as possible from the air bag.
ALWAYS use SEAT BELTS and CHILD RESTRAINTS.
The addition of the sentence that all children are safest in the
back reflects the emphasis of the agency's public education campaign.
NHTSA has removed the modifier ``unbelted'' in front of children. NHTSA
agrees that this statement was too narrow. Focus group participants
generally asked for guidance about when occupants are no longer to be
regarded as ``children.'' This rule responds to this concern by adding
the age range ``12 and under.'' Finally, focus group participants found
the statement ``don't sit close to the air bag'' vague and asked for
more guidance about how close was too close. In response to these
concerns, NHTSA provided the Baltimore focus groups with labels
containing the following guidance: ``sit as far back as possible from
the air bag.'' The participants found this much more helpful.
Accordingly, this rule makes the same change to the sun visor warning
label.
NHTSA is not changing the emphasis on children. The primary thrust
of the proposed changes was the adverse effects on children. NHTSA
believes this focus is necessary as long as the current threat to
children remains as serious as it is now. Both the first and second
rounds of focus groups indicated that they were much more likely to
read and heed a label that tells them of a hazard to children and how
to protect children than they would be to read a general hazard
warning. Thus, the focus on children helps make the label more
effective in communicating warnings relevant to adults as well as
children. NHTSA notes that the advice in the last two bullets of this
label is applicable to anyone, and would reduce the risk for those
occupants. The focus groups correctly understood that these last two
bullets applied to all occupants, not just children. Thus, there was no
indication in the focus groups that the label's
[[Page 60213]]
emphasis on children leaves the public with the erroneous impression
that only children face risks from air bags or that the general
occupant safety messages in the last two bullets are limited to
children.
IX. Label on Passenger-Side End of Vehicle Dash or on Door Panel
As discussed in the NPRM, none of the 66 participants in the
original focus groups noticed this label on the vehicle they were
shown. This was the proposed label that generated the most comments on
size concerns from manufacturers. Manufacturers noted that the
available space was very small on some vehicles, and that the area
sometimes has vents or access panels. Manufacturers also asked that the
label be harmonized with the proposed ISO label. General Motors stated
that the agency should only require one new label. Finally, Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety stated that the label was likely to be
ineffective and should not be required.
NHTSA has decided not to require this label. The agency's focus
groups provided no indications that a label in this location would be
effective. In addition, NHTSA agrees that too many labels can reduce
the impact of all the labels. Not including the end-of-dash label in
the final rule will help address concerns expressed in the comments
about the number of new labels NHTSA is requiring and the potential
conflict if ISO adopts its proposed end-of-dash label.
X. Label in the Middle of the Dash Panel
As proposed, this label was to be a temporary label. Many advocacy
groups and individuals stated that this should be a permanent label.
Manufacturers expressed concerns with adhesive residue marring the
vehicle surface, and asked for alternatives such as hang tags from the
mirror or other non-adhesive labels. Manufacturers also stated that the
middle of the dash could have instruments which would make it difficult
to place even a temporary label there, and asked if the label could be
placed on other areas of the dash such as the glove compartment door.
NHTSA is not making this label permanent. NHTSA does not want the
labels to become a source of irritation to consumers. The label in the
middle of the dash is an additional means to reach a new vehicle buyer
and ensure that the buyer knows that the vehicle has air bags and that
there are warnings associated with this equipment. Since air bags are
still a new feature for many buyers, NHTSA believes this additional
reminder will be useful. However, this is not the only, or even the
primary, means to warn consumers about the adverse effects of air bags.
Indeed, the permanent sun visor warning label contains the warning that
``Children 12 and under can be killed by air bag.''
NHTSA is relaxing the location requirements for this label. NHTSA
proposed the middle of the dash to ensure the label was in a highly
visible location. NHTSA agrees that there are other very conspicuous
locations in a vehicle, and will allow the label to be anywhere on the
dash or the steering wheel hub where the label will be clearly visible
to the driver. NHTSA is not allowing the label to be a hang tag from
the rearview mirror, however. NHTSA is concerned that this location
would cause visibility concerns during a test drive and the label would
very likely be removed from the vehicle before it reaches the
purchaser.
NHTSA is also relaxing the requirement that the label be
``affixed,'' so that manufacturers do not need to use adhesives.
Manufacturers would be allowed to use other means of attaching the
label to the dash, such as clips in available openings.
After reviewing the comments and the second round of focus group
results, the agency has decided that the text of the new removable
label will read:
Children Can be KILLED or INJURED by Passenger Air Bag.
The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under.
Make sure all children use seat belts or child seats.
The second round of focus groups examined three alternative
versions of removable labels that differed in some respect from the
text of the proposed label. For two of the new alternatives, the
changes moved the statement ``make sure all children wear seat belts''
to the end of the label and added the phrase ``or child seats.'' Some
commenters indicated that the original statement might lead people to
use seat belts for children that should be in child seats. The message
was changed so that the warning about the possibility of death or
injury is not limited to unbelted children or children in rear-facing
child seats. Finally, a statement that the back seat is safest was
added. The third alternative removable label tested in these focus
groups used the language suggested by the Parent's Coalition for Air
Bag Warnings (``WARNING. Do not seat children in the front passenger
seat. Air bag deployment can cause serious injury or death to
children.'').
The focus groups preferred the label design that began, ``WARNING--
Children can be KILLED or INJURED by Passenger Air Bag.'' The
participants indicated that this was ``more informative'' than the
proposed removable label and that the message was ``quick and to the
point.'' Again, some participants thought this language was
``strident'' and ``scary,'' but the participants nearly unanimously
agreed that this opening would induce people to read the rest of the
label to learn more about the problem. NHTSA is adopting this as the
first line of the removable label required by this rule.
The next line of this removable label explains that ``The back seat
is the safest place for children 12 and under.'' This language was
suggested in the comments of National Safe Kids Campaign. NHTSA has
added an age definition to more clearly explain the meaning of the word
``children,'' as suggested by the focus groups in San Diego and
Chicago. The final line in the label advises ``Make sure all children
use seat belts or child seats.''
The label suggested by the Parents' Coalition was the second choice
of the focus group participants. It was the preferred choice for those
participants who found the ``children can be killed'' message too
strident. However, a number of participants reacted by saying the
opening ``Do not seat children in the front passenger seat'' was ``too
preachy'' and that they ``didn't like someone telling them what to
do.'' Others observed that they might not even read the second sentence
about air bags causing serious injury or death, because the opening
sentence here does not ``draw you into'' the label. The participants
agreed that both the Parents' Coalition label and the label required in
this rule convey essentially the same message. However, the focus group
participants found the required label conveyed the message more
effectively for them.
XI. Child Seat Label
NHTSA proposed to require the enhanced warning label on a rear-
facing child seat to be affixed in the area where a child's head would
rest. Many commenters stated that this location would not be so visible
as the area on the cushion adjacent to where the head would rest.
Commenters noted that many parents place the child in the seat before
placing the seat in a vehicle, and therefore the warning would not be
visible when placing the seat in the vehicle. Commenters also expressed
concern with durability in this area or with the possibility that the
label could irritate a child's head. Child seat manufacturers were also
concerned that the prominence of this label would lead
[[Page 60214]]
users to conclude ``falsely'' that this warning was more important than
other warnings.
NHTSA is requiring that an enhanced child seat warning label be
placed on the upper portion of the child seat cushion. While NHTSA
agrees that other issues are important, at this time, the air bag
warning is the most important issue to communicate to consumers.
However, NHTSA will allow some flexibility in the location on the
cushion. The label can be either where the child's head rests or
adjacent to that area. The purpose of the new location is to ensure
that parents see the label each time they place the seat in a vehicle.
This modification may make the label more visible and will ease some of
the burden on child seat manufacturers.
The recent focus groups tested new versions of this label. The
focus groups tested two new labels: (1) a label with the ISO pictogram,
and the ANSI color scheme, except that the heading had a yellow
background, and (2) a label with the Chrysler pictogram, the ANSI color
scheme, and an additional line of text that the back seat is the safest
place for children. The focus groups preferred the latter version of
the label, if the heading were yellow instead of orange.
Based on the comments and focus groups results, the message of the
new label will read:
WARNING:
DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on front seat with air bag.
DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY can occur.
The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under.
XII. Letters to Owners of Existing Vehicles
NHTSA is aware that some manufacturers intend to send letters to
current owners of vehicles with passenger-side air bags. These letters
may include copies of the new warning labels. NHTSA encourages
manufacturers to do this.
The warning labels now on vehicles were put on in compliance with
Standard No. 208. Thus, vehicle owners or others might wonder whether
placing a new warning label over the existing warning label would be a
violation of the statutory prohibition against ``making inoperative''
items, including labels, installed in compliance with a safety
standard. NHTSA would like to assure the public that no statutory
prohibition would be violated by placing a new warning label over an
existing warning label. Obviously, there is no violation if a person
decides to do this to his or her own vehicle, because the Federal
prohibition does not apply to owners of vehicles, but only to
commercial businesses like manufacturers, dealers, and repair
businesses. If a manufacturer, dealer, or repair shop were to place a
new warning label over the existing warning labels, that act would not
constitute a ``making inoperative'' violation. NHTSA has long said
that, with respect to a safety standard requirement that has changed
since a vehicle was manufactured, modifying the vehicle so that it no
longer complies with the requirement in effect when the vehicle was
manufactured is not a violation of this prohibition if the modification
brings the vehicle into compliance with the requirement currently in
effect. Thus, commercial businesses do not need to be concerned about
potential violations of this prohibition.
The NHTSA focus groups indicated that the inclusion of a label in a
letter from a vehicle manufacturer would increase significantly the
likelihood that they would read the letter. Based on this, NHTSA
strongly encourages manufacturers to consider including labels with any
letters they may send existing owners. The letter will give the
manufacturers an additional opportunity to inform the public about this
problem and to offer more detailed advice than can be expressed on a
label.
XIII. Leadtime and Costs
NHTSA proposed to require the new or enhanced vehicle labels for
vehicles manufactured on or after a date 60 days after publication of
the final rule. The agency also proposed that enhanced labels be
affixed to all child restraints that can be used in a rear-facing
position and that are manufactured on or after a date 180 days after
publication of the final rule. This longer lead time for child seat
manufacturers was an acknowledgment that these manufacturers will have
to change their manufacturing process to include some means of
permanently labeling the padding or cushion, something they do not do
presently, to the best of the agency's knowledge.
No child seat manufacturers asked for longer leadtime. Therefore,
NHTSA is adopting the proposed leadtime of 180 days after publication
of this final rule.
Most vehicle manufacturers asked for longer leadtime, ranging from
90 to 180 days. NHTSA has decided to allow 90 days leadtime for vehicle
labels. The proposed 60 day leadtime reflected NHTSA's desire for
expedited action on this issue. Both suppliers and manufacturers have
said that 60 days is not feasible. The adopted leadtime is at the low
end of the estimates of feasible leadtime from the commenters. Because
NHTSA has decided not to adopt one of the proposed labels, the leadtime
needed by manufacturers should be reduced. In view of the immediate
need to alert the public to the adverse effects of air bags on
children, NHTSA finds that a lead time of less than 180 days is in the
public interest.
Finally, to encourage the earliest possible installation of the new
enhanced labels, NHTSA is allowing manufacturers to install the new
labels before the required date.
NHTSA estimates that the total incremental costs of the vehicle
labels will be $0.11 to $0.35 per vehicle. Based on an estimated 15
million passenger cars and light trucks sold annually, the cost of this
rule will be $1.65 to $5.25 million. For the child seat label, NHTSA
estimates that the total incremental costs will be $0.30 to $0.60 per
child seat. Based on an estimate that 3.9 million of the 5.1 million
child restraints sold annually are capable of being used rear-facing,
the annual cost of this rule will be $1.17 to $2.34 million. Thus, the
total cost of this rule is estimated to be $2.82 to $7.59 million
annually. A complete discussion of the agency's cost estimate can be
found in the Final Regulatory Evaluation placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.
XIV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been determined to
be ``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This action is considered significant because
of the degree of public interest in this subject. This action is not
economically significant. The total cost of this rule is estimated to
be $2.82 to $7.59 million annually. A complete discussion of the
agency's cost estimate can be found in the Final Regulatory Evaluation
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule affects motor vehicle manufacturers and child
seat manufacturers. Almost all motor vehicle manufacturers do not
qualify as small
[[Page 60215]]
businesses. The agency knows of eight manufacturers of child seats, two
of which NHTSA considers to be small business. However, since this rule
involves only labeling changes, the rule will not have any significant
economic impact.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this final rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this final rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 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 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, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues 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 571.208 is amended by redesignating S4.5.1(e) as
S4.5.1(f), by revising S4.5.1, S4.5.1(b) and S4.5.1(c), and by adding a
new S4.5.1(e) and a new S4.5.5, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
* * * * *
S4.5.1 Labeling and owner's manual information. The labels
specified in S4.5.1(b), (c), and (e) of this standard are not required
for vehicles that have a smart passenger air bag meeting the criteria
specified in S4.5.5 of this standard.
(a) * * *
(b) Sun visor warning label.
(1) Vehicles manufactured before February 25, 1997. Each vehicle
shall comply with either S4.5.1(b)(1)(i) or S4.5.1(b)(1)(ii), and with
S4.5.1(b)(1)(iii). At the manufacturer's option, the vehicle may comply
with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2), instead of the requirements of
S4.5.1(b)(1).
(i) Each front outboard seating position that provides an
inflatable restraint shall have a label permanently affixed to the sun
visor for that seating position on either side of the sun visor, at the
manufacturer's option. Except as provided in S4.5.1(b)(1)(v), this
label shall read:
CAUTION--TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY:
For maximum safety protection in all types of crashes, you must
always wear your safety belt.
Do not install rearward-facing child seats in any front
passenger seat position.
Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag.
Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag
and yourself.
See the owner's manual for further information and explanations.
(ii) If the vehicle is equipped with a cutoff device permitted by
S4.5.4 of this standard, each front outboard seating position that
provides an inflatable restraint shall have a label permanently affixed
to the sun visor for such seating position on either side of the sun
visor, at the manufacturer's option. Except as provided in
S4.5.1(b)(1)(v), this label shall read:
CAUTION--TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY:
For maximum safety protection in all types of crashes, you must
always wear your safety belt.
Do not install rearward-facing child seats in any front
passenger seat position, unless the air bag is off.
Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag.
Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag
and yourself.
See the owner's manual for further information and explanations.
(iii) The coloring of the label shall contrast with the background
of the label.
(iv) If the vehicle does not have an inflatable restraint at any
front seating position other than that for the driver, the statement
``Do not install rearward-facing child seats in any front passenger
seat position'' may be omitted from the label.
(v) At the manufacturer's option, the word ``warning'' may replace
the word ``caution'' in the labels specified in S4.5.1(b)(1)(i) and
S4.5.1(b)(1)(ii).
(2) Vehicles manufactured on or after February 25, 1997. Each
vehicle shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of the
sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating
position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall
conform in content to the label shown in either Figure 6a or 6b of this
standard, as appropriate, and shall comply with the requirements of
S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(2)(iii).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``warning'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 square cm.
(iii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm in
diameter.
(3) Except for the information on an air bag maintenance label
placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, no other
information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the
sun visor warning label is affixed. Except for the information in an
air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this
standard, or in a utility vehicle label that contains the language
required by 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1), no other information about air bags
or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor.
(c) Air bag alert label--(1) Vehicles manufactured before February
25, 1997. If the label required by S4.5.1(b)(1) for a sun visor (other
than the sun visor for the driver seating position) is not visible when
the sun visor is in the stowed position, an air bag alert label shall
be permanently affixed either to that visor so that the label is
visible when the visor is in that position or to the cover of the air
bag for that seating position, at the option of the manufacturer. An
air bag alert label affixed to an air bag cover pursuant to this
paragraph shall read ``Air Bag. See Sun Visor.'' An air bag alert label
affixed to a sun visor pursuant to this paragraph shall read ``Air Bag.
See Other Side.'' The color of the label shall contrast with the
background of the label. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with
[[Page 60216]]
the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2) rather than the requirements of
S4.5.1(b)(1), the air bag alert label shall comply with the
requirements of S4.5.1(c)(2).
(2) Vehicles manufactured on or after February 25, 1997. If the
label required by S4.5.1(b)(2) is not visible when the sun visor is in
the stowed position, an air bag alert label shall be permanently
affixed to that visor so that the label is visible when the visor is in
that position. The label shall conform in content to the sun visor
label shown in Figure 6c of this standard, and shall comply with the
requirements of S4.5.1(c)(2)(i) and S4.5.1(c)(2)(ii).
(i) The message area shall be black with yellow text. The message
area shall be no less than 20 square cm.
(ii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 20 mm in
diameter.
* * * * *
(e) Label on the dash. Each vehicle manufactured on or after
February 25, 1997 that is equipped with an inflatable restraint for the
passenger position shall have a label attached to a location on the
dashboard or the steering wheel hub that is clearly visible from all
front seating positions. The label need not be permanently affixed to
the vehicle. This label shall conform in content to the label shown in
Figure 7 of this standard, and shall comply with the requirements of
S4.5.1(e)(2)(i) and S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii).
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``warning'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 square cm.
* * * * *
S4.5.5 Smart passenger air bags. For purposes of this standard, a
smart passenger air bag is a passenger air bag that:
(a) Provides an automatic means to ensure that the air bag does not
deploy when a child seat or child with a total mass of 30 kg or less is
present on the front outboard passenger seat, or
(b) Incorporates sensors, other than or in addition to weight
sensors, which automatically prevent the air bag from deploying in
situations in which it might have an adverse effect on infants in rear-
facing child seats, and unbelted or improperly belted children, or
(c) Is designed to deploy in a manner that does not create a risk
of serious injury to infants in rear-facing child seats, and unbelted
or improperly belted children.
* * * * *
3. Section 571.208 is amended by adding new figures 6a, 6b, 6c, and
7 at the end of the section as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 60217]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.010
[[Page 60218]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.011
[[Page 60219]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.012
[[Page 60220]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.013
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
4. Section 571.213 is amended by adding S5.5.2(k) introductory
text' and adding a new section S5.5.2(k)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S5.5.2
* * * * *
(k) At the manufacturer's option, child restraint systems that can
be used in a rear-facing position may comply with the requirements of
S5.5.2(k)(4), instead of the requirements of S5.5.2(k)(1)(ii) or
S5.5.2(k)(2)(ii).
(1) * * *
* * * * *
(4) In the case of each child restraint system that can be used in
a rear-facing position and is manufactured on or after May 27, 1997,
instead of the warning specified in S5.5.2(k)(1)(ii) or
S5.5.2(k)(2)(ii) of this standard, a label that conforms in content to
Figure 10 and to the requirements of S5.5.2(k)(4)(i) through
S5.5.2(k)(4)(iii) of this standard shall be permanently affixed to the
outer surface of the cushion or padding in or adjacent to the area
where a child's head would rest, so that the label is plainly visible
and easily readable.
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``warning'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 square cm.
(iii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm in
diameter.
* * * * *
5. Section 571.213 is amended by adding a new figure 10 at the end
of the section as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 60221]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27NO96.014
Issued on November 22, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-30362 Filed 11-22-96; 4:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C