[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 10, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11337-11341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5394]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-04-17230]
RIN 2127-AJ15


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule, response to petition for reconsideration; 
correction.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a congressional mandate to consider the need 
for clearer and simpler labels on child restraint systems, NHTSA 
amended the requirements for child restraint labels and written 
instructions. This document responds to a petition for reconsideration 
of the final rule making those amendments, by amending some of the 
format and location requirements for child restraint system labels. It 
also corrects minor errors contained in the regulatory text of the 
final rule.

DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effective September 6, 
2004. At your option, you may comply with the amended requirements 
prior to the effective date. If you wish to petition for 
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by April 
26, 2004.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, Room 5220, 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:
    For non-legal issues: Ms. Mary Versailles of the NHTSA Office of 
Planning and Consumer Programs, at (202) 366-2057.
    For legal issues: Mr. Christopher Calamita of the NHTSA Office of 
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

[[Page 11338]]

    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petition for Reconsideration
    a. Side-by-side labels
    b. Required language for belt-positioning seats
    c. Visibility requirements for installation diagrams
    d. Correction of cross-reference
III. Technical correction
IV. Effective Date
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    On October 1, 2002, NHTSA published a final rule amending the 
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, 
Child restraint systems, for child restraint labels and the written 
instructions that accompany child restraints (67 FR 61523; Docket No. 
2001-10916.) The October 2002 rulemaking was in response to a mandate 
by Congress as part of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability, and Documentation Act (TREAD Act) that required NHTSA 
to consider whether to prescribe clearer and simpler labels and 
instructions for child restraints (Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1880 
(2002)). Among other things, the October 2002 final rule changed the 
location requirements for some labels, required most labels to be white 
with black text, simplified the required language of the statements on 
the labels, mandated that the required label statements be in a 
bulleted list headed by the statement ``WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS 
INJURY can occur,'' and required a new diagram showing the child 
restraint installed by means of a child restraint anchorage system that 
conforms with FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems.

II. Petition for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received a petition for reconsideration of the October 2002 
final rule from David E. Campbell & Associates, Inc. (Campbell; a 
consultant to child restraint manufacturers). The petition made four 
requests: to allow the bulleted warning list to be on separate, side-
by-side labels; to extend the application of the ``as appropriate'' 
condition to the required statement concerning use of belt positioning 
seats with a child restraint anchorage system; to allow installation 
illustrations on the child restraint to be covered if the child 
restraint has been properly installed; and to correct an improper cross 
reference.

a. Side-by-Side Labels

    To reduce the misuse of child restraints, FMVSS No. 213 requires 
all restraints to be labeled with a warning regarding the consequences 
of not following instructions, followed by a bulleted list of mandated 
statements in a specified order. Campbell stated that the language 
mandated by S5.5.2(g)(1), when printed in the type size required by 
S5.5.2, could result in a label too large to fit in any single visible 
location available on the child restraint. Campbell further stated that 
this problem might be compounded by placing belt routing illustrations 
at the bottom of the label in order to optimize placement of product 
information.
    Campbell requested that separate, side-by-side labels be allowed if 
(1) the mandated statements are in the specified sequence, and (2) each 
label that is not directly below one with the required heading start 
with the heading as specified in S5.5.2(g)(1). By allowing side-by-side 
labels, Campbell stated that manufacturers would have greater 
flexibility in placing the warning statement in visible locations on 
the restraint.
    Agency Response: The agency has granted this request. S5.5.2 of 
FMVSS No. 213 is amended to make it clear that more than one label may 
be used for the required list of bulleted statements, including side-
by-side labels.
    In the preamble to the October 2002 final rule, we stated that the 
bulleted list is not required to be on a single label, so long as the 
separate components are attached to the child restraint in the correct 
order and without any intervening labels (67 FR at 61526). At that 
time, the agency envisioned one label component being placed directly 
below another label component. Given that the standard practice in 
reading the English language is to read left to right and top to 
bottom, this final rule further permits, under limited situations, the 
separate warning labels to be placed side-by-side. The alternate 
arrangement for this label is only permitted when available space on 
the child restraint would not allow a vertical arrangement of the list.
    When the side-by-side arrangement is used, the required sequence 
must be maintained when reading the leftmost label from top to bottom, 
then the next rightmost label top to bottom. There must be no 
intervening labels.
    We do not agree with the petitioner's suggestion that each separate 
label must restate the warning heading. We are concerned that multiple 
headings could overwhelm a consumer given the close proximity of the 
labels and the strong nature of the required heading (WARNING! DEATH or 
SERIOUS INJURY can occur). To maintain a clear and direct warning the 
heading must appear at the top of the first label in the sequence. We 
are not allowing the warning to appear in the subsequent portions of 
the label.

b. Required Language for Belt-Positioning Seats

    As amended by the October 2002 final rule, S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) of 
FMVSS No. 213 requires a statement that directs consumers to install 
the restraint with the ``vehicle's child restraint anchorage system if 
available or vehicle seat belt.'' The petitioner pointed out that belt-
positioning seats are not designed to be attached with a child 
restraint anchorage system and therefore, this statement is not 
applicable to belt-positioning seats. Further, Campbell stated that 
requiring this statement could cause confusion with another statement 
mandated for belt-positioning booster seats, which specifies, ``use 
only the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system when restraining the 
child in this booster seat.'' S5.5.2(i)(1)(i). To avoid any potential 
confusion, Campbell recommended requiring the statement in 
S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) only when appropriate.
    Agency Response: The agency agrees that there was an error in 
requiring the S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) statement on labels for belt-positioning 
seats, since those restraints are not designed to use child restraint 
anchorage systems. This document corrects that error by not requiring 
the statement for belt-positioning seats.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a September 5, 2003, letter to Mr. Campbell, we 
acknowledged that the reference was in error and stated that we 
would be correcting it. www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/Campbell_petition.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Visibility Requirements for Installation Diagrams

    The October 2002 final rule amended FMVSS No. 213 to require 
installation information to be visible when the restraint is installed. 
Campbell expressed concern that the visibility requirement would 
mandate placing diagrams in a location away from the vehicle belt path 
and/or in a location less visible because of the limited space 
available on a child restraint. Campbell requested an amendment that 
would permit the restraint's installation diagrams to be covered by a 
vehicle belt when the restraint is properly installed using the belt, 
provided that the diagrams would be visible if the vehicle seat belt 
were not routed properly.

[[Page 11339]]

    The petitioner cited two examples. The first example, the AngelRide 
Infant Car Bed, has a forward edge that, when the child restraint is 
installed, protrudes from the restraint in a triangular manner. Because 
the belt path is on the upper portion of the forward edge, Campbell 
stated that under the current requirement the only available location 
for the installation information would be on the lower portion below 
the protrusion. This location is visible if the person placing the 
child in the car bed is looking straight at the restraint from the 
front, but not visible if that person is looking down on the restraint 
from above, as is likely once the restraint is installed. Campbell 
reasoned that information placed along the seat belt routing path would 
be more visible during installation than information placed underneath 
a forward-facing overhang.
    The second example is the type of restraint that has a detachable 
base. Typically, the installation diagrams for the base are located on 
the top surface, visible when the base alone is installed but not 
visible when the infant carrier is locked on the base. Campbell stated 
that the base is often installed without the carrier, and the 
installation instructions can be conveniently located on the top 
surface of the base. When the carrier is placed on the seat base so 
that it covers the instructions, the seat base has already been 
installed and secured.
    Agency Response: The agency does not agree with the recommendation 
by Campbell to allow information to be covered by a properly routed 
seat belt. NHTSA does not want the information to be covered by the 
belt because if it were, consumers would have to unbuckle and undo or 
loosen the routing of the belt in order to review or double check the 
installation information. Vehicle belts are often misused when used to 
attach child restraints, by not being properly routed or tightened for 
a secure attachment of the restraint. NHTSA believes that labels should 
not be placed where to read them the vehicle belt would have to be 
detached, or its routing undone or loosened or otherwise manipulated, 
because the child restraint might not be re-secured properly. Consumers 
might also be discouraged from double checking the information to 
determine whether they have properly attached the restraint when they 
would have to undo the belt to do so. Accordingly, this request to 
allow installation information to be covered when a restraint is 
properly installed is denied, with one caveat, noted below.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NHTSA notes that a manufacturer may place a label where it 
would be covered by the belt if a duplicate label were placed 
elsewhere on the restraint, in a location where it is visible when 
the restraint is installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is granting the request with respect to restraints with a 
detachable base. For child restraints with a detachable base, typically 
the base is installed separately from the carrier portion of the 
restraint and left attached to the vehicle. Because the base is 
normally secured without the carrier, in the past some manufacturers 
have placed the labels with the installation information on the top 
surface of the base. This allows the user of the system to conveniently 
reference the installation diagrams and information while installing 
the base. Even after the carrier portion has been attached to the base, 
the carrier portion can be easily removed to reference the information 
related to installation and securing while the base remains secured to 
the vehicle.
    Accordingly, this final rule amends the visibility requirements so 
that, for child restraints with a detachable base, the information 
regarding installation and the securing of the child need only be 
visible when the base alone is installed. Because the detachable base 
is typically installed without the carrier portion attached, allowing 
installation information to be on the base places that information in 
an easily referenced location during installation. Further, because of 
the ease and frequency with which the carrier portion can be removed 
from the base, the information remains in a location that is easily 
accessible by a child restraint user.

d. Correction of Cross-Reference

    S5.5.2(g)(1) of the October 2002 final rule intended to specify 
that labels must have a heading meeting the requirements of 
S5.5.3(k)(3)(i), i.e., the heading area must be yellow with the word 
``warning'' and the alert symbol in black. Campbell notes that 
S5.5.2(g)(1) erroneously refers to S5.5.2(k)(4)(i) rather than 
S5.5.2(k)(3)(i). This final rule corrects the cross-reference. In 
addition, the cross-reference in S5.5.5(g)(1), relating to the heading 
of the labeling of built-in child restraints, is corrected in the same 
manner.

III. Technical Correction

    Children who have outgrown child safety seats should use a booster 
seat until they are at least 8 years old, unless they are 4 feet 9 
inches tall. To clearly convey this message, the October 2002 final 
rule permitted seats that can only be used as belt-positioning seats to 
be labeled only with the maximum height of the children for whom the 
seat is recommended. References to weight are no longer required for 
these restraint systems. However, to properly reflect the entire 
message, a minimum height for the children must also be included on the 
label. Providing a minimum height recommendation will help prevent 
children from being placed in booster seats prematurely and will help 
keep children in ``toddler'' restraints (child restraints with internal 
harness systems) until they can be safely accommodated by a booster 
seat. To convey the entire message as intended by the October 2002 
final rule, this document amends the labeling requirement for 
restraints that can only be used as booster seats to require the 
specification of both the minimum and maximum height of the children 
for whom the seat can be used. This document amends the relevant 
requirements for both add-on and built-in booster seats. See, S5.5.2 
and S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 213 as amended below.

IV. Effective Date

    This rule is effective in 180 days. We believe that this is 
sufficient time for CRS manufacturers to redesign their labels in 
accordance with the technical correction described above. To permit 
manufacturers the flexibility of the other amendments made by this 
document, we are permitting early compliance.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rule under Executive Order 
12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been determined to 
be ``nonsignificant'' under the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. The agency concludes that the 
impacts of the amendments are so minimal that preparation of a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required. The October 2002 final rule 
estimated that the cost of changing the location and text of the labels 
to be only $.01 to $.03 per label. The amendments made by today's final 
rule will not change that estimate. This final rule does provide 
slightly more flexibility in the placement of required warning labels.

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under 
the

[[Page 11340]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that the 
amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The rule will provide manufacturers slightly 
more flexibility in placing mandatory warning labels on child restraint 
systems.

c. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This document does 
not establish any new information collection requirements.

d. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this amendment for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

e. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or the agency consults 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. NHTSA may also not issue a regulation with 
Federalism implications that preempts State law unless the agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with 
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule will have no 
substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. Section 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.

g. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    The agency searched for, but did not find any voluntary consensus 
standards relevant to this final rule.

h. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    This final rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rule will not result in 
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA.

i. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.


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

PART 571-[AMENDED]

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

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


0
2. Section 571.213 is amended as follows:
0
a. by revising the introductory text of S5.5.2(f), adding S5.5.2(f)(4); 
revising S5.5.2(g)(1) introductory text, revising S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii), and 
adding S5.5.2(g)(3);
0
b. by revising S5.5.3, and
0
c. by revising the introductory text of S5.5.5(f), and adding 
S5.5.5(f)(4); and,
0
d. by revising S5.5.5(g)(1).
    The revised and added text read as follows:

[[Page 11341]]

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

* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * *
    (f) One of the following statements, as appropriate, inserting the 
manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum mass of children who can 
safely occupy the system, except that booster seats shall not be 
recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg. For seats 
that can only be used as belt-positioning seats, manufacturers must 
include the maximum and minimum recommended height, but may delete the 
reference to weight:
* * * * *
    (4) Use only with children who weigh between ---- and ---- pounds 
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is 
optional) and whose height is between ---- and ---- (insert appropriate 
values in English and metric units).
    (g) * * *
    (1) A heading as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i), with the statement 
``WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur,'' capitalized as written 
and followed by bulleted statements in the following order:
* * * * *
    (ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint 
anchorage system if available or with a vehicle belt. [For car beds, 
harnesses, and belt positioning boosters, the first part of the 
statement regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage system 
is optional.]
* * * * *
    (3) More than one label may be used for the required bulleted 
statements. Multiple labels shall be placed one above the other unless 
that arrangement is precluded by insufficient space or shape of the 
child restraint. In that case, multiple labels shall be placed side by 
side. When using multiple labels, the mandated warnings must be in the 
correct order when read from top to bottom. If the labels are side-by-
side, then the mandated warnings must appear top to bottom of the 
leftmost label, then top to bottom of the next label to its right, and 
so on. There shall be no intervening labels and the required heading 
shall only appear on the first label in the sequence.
* * * * *
    S5.5.3 The information specified in S5.5.2(f) through (l) shall be 
located on the add-on child restraint system so that it is visible when 
the system is installed as specified in S5.6.1, except that for child 
restraints with a detachable base, the installation diagrams specified 
in S5.5.2(l) are required to be visible only when the base alone is 
installed.
* * * * *
    S5.5.5 * * *
    (f) One of the following statements, inserting the manufacturer's 
recommendations for the maximum mass of children who can safely occupy 
the system, except that booster seats shall not be recommended for 
children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg. For seats that can only be 
used as belt-positioning seats, manufacturers must include the maximum 
and minimum recommended height, but may delete the reference to weight:
* * * * *
    (4) Use only with children who weigh between ---- and ---- pounds 
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is 
optional) and whose height is between ---- and ---- (insert appropriate 
values in English and metric units).
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) A heading as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i), with the statement 
``WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur,'' capitalized as written 
and followed by the bulleted statement: Follow all instructions on the 
child restraint and in the vehicle's owner's manual. At the 
manufacturer's option, the phrase ``DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur'' 
in the heading can be on either a white or yellow background.
* * * * *

    Issued on: March 3, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-5394 Filed 3-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P