[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52626-52630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-25818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4483]
RIN 2127-AG82, RIN 2127-AH02


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts as final most of the amendments made by 
interim final rules to the air bag warning label requirement in 
Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems'' (49 CFR 571.213). The 
required label warns that a rear-facing child restraint must never be 
placed in a vehicle front seat with an air bag. The interim final rules 
modified the label to allow the phrase ``unless air bag is off'' to be 
added to the end of the warning, if the child seat is equipped with a 
device that deactivates the air bag and provides a signal that the air 
bag has been disabled. This document adopts the amendments of the 
interim rules, except that the signal that the air bag is deactivated 
must be provided for a longer duration than that specified in the 
interim rules.
    This document also corrects a labeling provision in Standard 213 
that required child restraints to provide an installation diagram 
showing the child restraint system installed in the ``right front'' 
outboard seating position equipped with a continuous-loop lap/shoulder 
belt and the ``center rear'' seating position equipped with only a lap 
belt. The agency is removing the references to ``right front'' and 
``center rear'' as being unnecessary and potentially confusing.

DATES: Effective date: March 30, 1999. Because this final rule revises 
a provision of the June 1997 interim rule, a 180 day effective date is 
adopted to provide manufacturers with sufficient leadtime to implement 
any needed changes to their vehicles or child restraint systems as a 
result of this rule.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of 
this rule must be received by the agency not later than November 16, 
1998.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For nonlegal issues: Mary Versailles, Office of Safety Performance 
Standards, NPS-31, telephone (202) 366-2057.
    For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20, 
telephone (202) 366-2992.
    Both can be reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends Standard No. 213, 
``Child Restraint Systems,'' on a permanent basis to modify the air bag 
warning label which rear-facing child seats have been required to bear 
from May 1997. This document adopts all but one of the amendments made 
in interim final rules published on April 17, 1997 (62 FR 18723) and 
June 4, 1997 (62 FR 30464). The one amendment that differs from the 
interim final rule relates to the length of time a signal that the air 
bag is deactivated must operate after deactivation. Rather than operate 
for at least 10 seconds after deactivation, the signal must operate for 
at least 60 seconds after deactivation.

Original Final Rule

    The requirement for the air bag warning label was adopted in a 
November 27, 1996 final rule (61 FR 60206) 1, which also 
adopted new warning label requirements for vehicles with air bags. The 
requirement for the enhanced child seat label is set forth in S5.5.2(k) 
of Standard 213. The requirement specifies, among other things, the 
exact content of the message that must be provided on the label. The 
message of the label must be preceded by a heading ( ``WARNING''), with 
an alert symbol, and state the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Corrected December 4, 1996 (61 FR 64297), December 11, 1996 
(61 FR 65187), and January 2, 1997 (62 FR 31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on front seat with air bag.
    DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY can occur.

[[Page 52627]]

    The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under. Also 
required on the label is a pictogram showing a rear-facing child seat 
being impacted by an air bag, surrounded by a red circle with a slash 
across it. Flexibility as to the content of the label is not provided; 
thus, wording other than that specified in the standard is not 
permitted.

First Interim Final Rule

    On April 17, 1997 (62 FR 18723), NHTSA amended S5.5.2(k) to permit, 
for some child restraints, the addition of the phrase ``unless air bag 
is off'' after the sentence stating ``DO NOT place rear-facing child 
seat on front seat with air bag.'' The amendment responded to a request 
from Mercedes-Benz concerning rear-facing child seats that have 
features enabling the seat to deactivate the passenger-side air bag.
    Mercedes developed a rear-facing child seat with a device that 
automatically turns off the passenger-side air bag in vehicles designed 
to respond to such a device. The cutoff feature makes it possible to 
use a child restraint system on the front seat of these vehicles 
without subjecting the child to risk of injury from an air bag 
deployment. Mercedes believed that the first statement (``DO NOT place 
rear-facing child seat on front seat with air bag'') was inappropriate 
for child restraints with a feature that turns off the air bag, and 
could be potentially confusing to owners of child restraints that are 
marketed as compatible with a complementary air bag system. Mercedes 
suggested that the amended label should be permitted on a child 
restraint that is equipped with a cutoff device, if the cutoff device 
automatically deactivates the passenger-side air bag and activates a 
telltale light in the vehicle that complies with S4.5.4.3 of Standard 
No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection'' (49 CFR Sec. 571.208). S4.5.4.3 
states:

    A telltale light on the dashboard shall be clearly visible from 
all front seating positions and shall be illuminated whenever the 
passenger air bag is deactivated. The telltale light: (a) Shall be 
yellow; (b) Shall have the identifying words ``AIR BAG OFF'' on the 
telltale or within 25 millimeters of the telltale; (c) Shall remain 
illuminated for the entire time that the passenger air bag is 
deactivated; (d) Shall not be illuminated at any time when the 
passenger air bag is not deactivated; and, (e) Shall not be combined 
with the readiness indicator required by S4.5.2 of [Standard 208].

    In the April 17, 1997 interim final rule, NHTSA agreed with 
Mercedes that adding the phrase ``unless air bag is off'' would clarify 
the message of the label and reduce the likelihood of confusing owners 
of child seats that are intended for use on and marketed as appropriate 
for front seat positions on vehicles equipped with air bag cutoff 
devices. The agency tentatively agreed that the conditions of (a) 
automatic deactivation and (b) a telltale meeting S4.5.4.3 of Standard 
208, ``reduce[d] the likelihood that a child restraint would be used 
with an active air bag.'' Because NHTSA saw no diminution of safety 
resulting from the change, the agency amended the standard to 
accommodate Mercedes' request.

Second Interim Rule

    After the April 17, 1997 interim final rule was issued, Porsche 
contacted the agency asking whether the conditions for automatic 
deactivation and a telltale meeting S4.5.4.3 were necessary requisites 
to allowing the phrase ``unless air bag is off'' to be added to the 
child seat warning label.
    Porsche had also developed a rear-facing child seat with a device 
that turns off the passenger-side air bag in vehicles designed to 
respond to such a device. However, unlike Mercedes', the device is not 
automatic. To turn off the passenger-side air bag, a specialized buckle 
tongue on the child seat must be inserted into a buckle receiver 
installed under the front passenger seat. The Porsche system does not 
include a telltale light complying with S4.5.4.3 of Standard No. 208. 
Instead, the air bag readiness indicator flashes for 10 seconds to 
inform the driver that the child seat has properly cut off the 
passenger-side air bag. If the vehicle ignition is on when the special 
buckle is inserted in the receiver, the warning light flashes upon 
insertion of the buckle. If the vehicle ignition is off when the 
special buckle is inserted, the warning light flashes each time the 
ignition is turned on. Porsche believed that its design, while 
different from the Mercedes design, also warrants the addition of the 
phrase ``unless air bag is off'' to the child seat warning label on 
Porsche's rear-facing child seats.
    NHTSA reexamined the first interim final rule and determined that 
the phrase ``unless air bag is off'' may appropriately be added to a 
child seat that can deactivate an air bag, whether or not the 
deactivation is automatic. In addition, the agency determined that 
specified telltale requirements are unnecessary so long as a signal is 
provided to the driver that the air bag has been disabled.
    NHTSA explained that if an air bag were deactivated by a device 
incorporated into a child safety seat, the danger that the label on the 
seat warns against (i.e., an active air bag) will not be present. This 
result can be achieved as effectively by non-automatic means as by 
automatic means. The question raised by a non-automatic device such as 
Porsche's is whether a person installing the seat in a vehicle will 
install it correctly. If the likelihood of correct installation is very 
high, allowing the addition of the phrase ``unless air bag is off'' to 
the label would help resolve any confusion on the part of the person 
installing the seat.
    The agency noted:

    In the case of the device employed by Porsche, the child safety 
seat is equipped with a single buckle that fits into a buckle 
receiver under the vehicle's seat. The buckle fits no other part of 
the vehicle. The correctness of its installation is evident, both by 
the click of the buckle upon its insertion into the receiver and by 
the activation of a visual signal on the vehicle's dash. These 
features offer sufficient assurance of correct installation, in the 
agency's view, to warrant the modification of the label.

62 FR at 30465.
    The agency also addressed the issue of the nature of the visual 
signal. NHTSA determined that it is essential to have a means of 
notifying the driver that the air bag has been disabled. In the first 
interim rule, NHTSA said that the phrase may be added if the child seat 
has a device that activates a telltale complying with S4.5.4.3 of 
Standard 208. Upon reexamining the need for notifying the driver, the 
agency determined that the telltale requirements of Standard 208 are 
not necessary, as stated in the first interim final rule, to ``reduce 
the likelihood that a child restraint would be used with an active air 
bag.'' NHTSA stated that the telltale requirements were originally 
specified for a cutoff device that operates in a way that could allow 
an adult to use the front passenger seating position with the air bag 
deactivated. The requirements ensure that there is a reminder that the 
cutoff device should be reset whenever the vehicle's front seat is no 
longer carrying an infant, so that the air bag would be ready when 
needed. The telltale requirements are intended to inform an adult 
passenger, to enable him or her to see the warning light and understand 
that the air bag is not activated. The agency explained:

    In contrast, air bag deactivation systems of the types developed 
by Mercedes and Porsche deactivate the air bag when and only when a 
child restraint is present and reactivate the air bag when the child 
restraint is removed. Such systems render it highly unlikely that an 
unknowing adult could be seated in the front seating position with 
the air bag deactivated. Because of this difference, a telltale 
meeting S4.5.4.3 of Standard 208 does not appear needed.


[[Page 52628]]


NHTSA decided, however, that the driver should be alerted as to whether 
the child seat has deactivated the air bag. The agency concluded that 
the signal must continue for at least 10 seconds after deactivation of 
the air bag. A visual signal could include a dashboard light. Because 
the rule did not require that a dashboard light must remain illuminated 
for the entire time that the passenger air bag is deactivated, the 
agency believed that the light may be combined with the readiness 
indicator required by S4.5.2 of Standard 208, provided that such 
combination does not affect the compliance of the readiness indicator 
with S4.5.2.

Response and Analysis

    The agency received one comment responding to the first interim 
final rule (``Mercedes rule''), from the Center for Auto Safety (CAS). 
Four commenters, CAS, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS), Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), and National 
Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners, Inc. 
(``NAP'') responded to the second (``Porsche rule''). All commenters 
opposed the amendments.
    CAS and NAP believed that adding the phrase ``unless air bag is 
off'' confuses the warning label and may lead consumers to place a 
rear-facing child seat in the front seat of a vehicle that is not 
equipped with the on-off device. CAS said that confusion will also 
result from allowing two child seat systems, Mercedes' and Porsche's, 
that are not compatible with each other. The commenter was concerned 
that a consumer may use a Mercedes child seat in a Porsche, or vice 
versa, and may not know that the child restraint has not deactivated 
the air bag.
    NHTSA does not agree that the phrase leads to confusion. On the 
contrary, the phrase clarifies the message for owners of child seats 
that are intended for use on and marketed as appropriate for front seat 
positions on vehicles equipped with complementary air bag cutoff 
devices. These owners know that their child restraints can be placed on 
the front seat with an air bag, so the added conditional language, 
``unless air bag is off,'' corrects an inconsistency that could cause 
them to doubt or question that warning or the other messages on the 
label. NHTSA does not agree that the added phrase will result in owners 
of rear-facing child seats that do not have a cut off device 
erroneously placing the restraint in a position with an active air bag. 
Those restraints lacking a cut-off device are not permitted by the 
amendment to have the phrase in their labels. NAP stated that NHTSA 
should not permit the amendment ``for a commonly-purchased device 
simply because a few luxury automobile manufacturers, whose vehicles 
are purchased by a small number of Americans, have made technological 
advances making the warning imperfect for them.'' The commenter 
appeared to believe that the amendment would permit the phrase ``unless 
air bag is off'' to be placed on the warning labels of all child seats, 
not just those that are equipped with a device that deactivates the air 
bag when the child restraint is installed in the vehicle. As stated 
above, that understanding is incorrect. Only seats that have a cut-off 
feature are permitted to have the added phrase.
    The agency does not agree with CAS that the phrase should not be 
permitted because owners of a Mercedes child restraint may use a 
Mercedes seat in a Porsche vehicle, or vice versa, and not realize that 
the child restraint did not deactivate the air bag. NHTSA believes that 
such an intermix will rarely, if ever, occur. Mercedes' child 
restraints can only be purchased from Mercedes dealers or directly from 
Britax, the child restraint manufacturer. Porsche's restraints can only 
be purchased from Porsche dealers. Because these child restraints are 
only sold by specialized retailers, persons buying these seats are 
likely to know that the restraints are intended for a specialized 
vehicle and cannot deactivate the air bag in vehicles other than their 
Mercedes or Porsche, as the case may be.
    CAS, Advocates and NAP expressed concern that the amendment dilutes 
the safety message that children are safer riding in the rear seat than 
in front. The purpose of the child restraint air bag warning label is 
to stop parents from installing a rear-facing restraint on a seat with 
an active air bag. The warning label is required to have the statement 
``The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under'' after 
the warning against placing a rear-facing restraint on the front seat 
with an air bag to provide an alternative seating position to the 
front. For child restraints that turn off the air bag, the particular 
danger necessitating the warning label (the dangers of an active air 
bag) will not be present and thus the immediate need for an alternative 
seating position to the front does not arise. The agency agrees that 
the back seat is the safest for the child in the rear-facing restraint, 
as it is for all passengers. However, the general message that back 
seats are safer is made and reinforced a number of different ways other 
than by the child seat air bag warning label, including by way of 
conspicuous air bag alert labels required to be on the vehicle itself 
(S4.5.1 of Standard 208) and by way of warnings required to be in the 
vehicle owner's manuals (S6(b) of Standard 210) and child restraint 
manufacturers' instructions (S5.6.1.1 of Standard 213). The primary 
message of the air bag warning label is to warn against using a rear-
facing seat with an active air bag. The need to make the primary 
message as clear as possible weighs in favor of permitting the phrase 
``unless air bag is off'' to be added to the label of those child 
restraints that can cut off the air bag.
    IIHS believed that the Porsche system provides inadequate warning 
of the status of the passenger airbag. The commenter believed that 
there should be a separate signal that remains on for the duration that 
the airbag is deactivated and that clearly indicates airbag status. 
IIHS argued that a parent could be distracted during the 10 second 
period that the Porsche warning light is flashing and thus would not 
know that the air bag was in fact deactivated. Advocates also expressed 
concern that the signal that the Porsche system uses may not adequately 
inform the driver that the air bag is off. Advocates said:

    Only those drivers who are aware of that fact will be likely to 
understand the meaning of that particular signal. There are also 
many situations in which an inattentive driver will not see the 
blinking indicator light when flashing and misperceive the 
subsequent lack of any light indication as confirmation that the air 
bag is deactivated.

    NHTSA agrees that the 10-second duration that the signal indicating 
that the air bag is deactivated may be too short and has increased the 
minimum duration to 60 seconds. This is the same duration as what is 
required by Standard 208 for the warning light that warns the driver 
that his or her belt is not buckled.
    NHTSA believes that a driver of a Porsche will know that a blinking 
light is the signal that the air bag has been deactivated. Unlike the 
Mercedes system, Porsche owners have to go to the dealership and have 
the vehicle component installed in their vehicle. In general, our 
consumer research shows that the most motivated group to seek out 
safety information are parents or others transporting children. Thus, 
we believe that a Porsche owner wanting the system installed will read 
up on how the system works and will know to look for the blinking light 
and will know what the signal means.

Correction

    This document also makes a correction to S5.5.2(l) of Standard 213,

[[Page 52629]]

which requires each child restraint system to show, on a label, an 
installation diagram showing the system ``installed in the right front 
outboard seating position equipped with a continuous-loop lap/shoulder 
belt and in the center rear seating position as specified in the 
manufacturer's instructions.'' The agency is removing the reference to 
the ``right front outboard'' seating position because the phrase is 
unnecessary. The requirement, adopted in 1979, was intended to ensure 
that consumers were shown how to use a continuous-loop lap/shoulder 
belt because of the prevalence of the system and because a locking clip 
had to be installed on the belt to safely secure the child restraint. 
Consumers unfamiliar with child restraints are generally unfamiliar 
with what locking clips are and how to use them. In 1979, continuous-
loop lap/shoulder belts were generally not in rear seating positions, 
and so S5.5.2(l) referenced the ``right front outboard'' seating 
position to identify the seating position most likely to have the belts 
and to show the child seat in the seating position likely to have the 
belts. With the advent of these belts in seating positions other than 
the front outboard positions, the need to reference ``right front 
outboard'' is no longer relevant. Similarly, the agency is removing 
reference to the ``center rear'' seating position as unnecessary. While 
it is important to depict the child restraint installed by way of a lap 
belt due to the presence of lap belts in center rear seating positions, 
specifying the exact location as ``center rear'' is unneeded. 
Accordingly, S5.5.2(l) is revised to read:

    (l) An installation diagram showing the child restraint system 
installed in (1) a seating position equipped with a continuous-loop 
lap/shoulder belt and (2) a seating position equipped with only a 
lap belt, as specified in the manufacturer's instructions.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' NHTSA has considered the impact of 
this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866 and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This action has 
been determined to be ``nonsignificant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The amendments 
pertain to optional label changes that are minor in nature. The agency 
concludes that the impacts of the amendments are so minimal that a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I hereby certify 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    This final rule will primarily affect vehicle and child restraint 
manufacturers. As described above, there will be no significant 
economic impact on any vehicle manufacturer, whether large or small. 
Even if the rule were to have a significant economic impact, there is 
not a substantial number of small entities that manufacture vehicles. 
The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) size standards are 
organized according to Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SIC). 
SIC Code 3711 ``Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies'' has a small 
business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer. For passenger car 
and light truck manufacturers (manufacturers of vehicle most likely to 
be affected by this rule), NHTSA estimates there are at most five small 
manufacturers of passenger cars in the U.S. Because each manufacturer 
serves a niche market, often specializing in replicas of ``classic'' 
cars, production for each manufacturer is fewer than 100 cars per year. 
Thus, there are at most five hundred cars manufactured per year by U.S. 
small businesses. In contrast, in 1996, there are approximately nine 
large manufacturers manufacturing passenger cars and light trucks in 
the U.S. Total U.S. manufacturing production per year is approximately 
15 to 15 and a half million passenger cars and light trucks per year. 
NHTSA does not believe small businesses manufacture even 0.1 percent of 
total U.S. passenger car and light truck production per year.
    SIC Code 3714 ``Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories'' has a small 
business size standard of 750 employees or fewer. The agency has 
considered the small business impacts of this proposed rule based on 
this criterion. NHTSA does not believe this rule will have a 
significant economic impact on these entities. The rule will not impose 
any new requirements or costs on child restraint manufacturers, but 
instead will permit a manufacturer to use an optional label on its 
child restraint if conditions on the use of the label are met.
    The cost of new passenger cars and light trucks and of child 
restraints will not be affected by the final rule. Because no price 
increases will be associated with the rule, small organizations and 
small governmental units will not be affected in their capacity as 
purchasers of new vehicles or as purchasers of child restraints.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this rule.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this 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. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose any unfunded mandates as defined by the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

G. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule has no 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, the interim final rule amending 
49 CFR part 571 which was published at 62 FR 18723 on April 17, 1997, 
and amended as published at 62 FR 30464 on June 4, 1997, is adopted as 
a final rule with the following change:

[[Page 52630]]

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

    2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S5.5.2(k)(5) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 571.213  Standard No. 213, child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * *
    (k) * * *
    (5) If a child restraint system is equipped with a device that 
deactivates the passenger-side air bag in a vehicle when and only when 
the child restraint is installed in the vehicle and provides a signal, 
for at least 60 seconds after deactivation, that the air bag is 
deactivated, the label specified in Figure 10 may include the phrase 
``unless air bag is off'' after ``on front seat with air bag.''
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 571.213, paragraph S5.5.2(l) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 571.213  Standard No. 213; child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    (l) An installation diagram showing the child restraint system 
installed in:
    (1) A seating position equipped with a continuous-loop lap/shoulder 
belt; and
    (2) A seating position equipped with only a lap belt, as specified 
in the manufacturer's instructions.
* * * * *

    Issued on September 22, 1998.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-25818 Filed 9-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P