[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
