[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30696-30700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12801]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 41]
RIN 2127-AF46
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule, and a companion proposed rule issued by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), address the use of child
harnesses and backless child restraints in aircraft. This document
proposes to amend a provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' that permits those restraints to
be certified for use in both motor vehicles and aircraft.
Under the current FAA regulations, aircraft-certified child
restraints may be used on aircraft. However, because testing has raised
concerns about the safety of using harnesses and backless child
restraint systems on the types of seats found in aircraft, FAA is
publishing, in today's Federal Register, an NPRM that would prohibit
the use of booster seats, and vest- and harness-type child restraint
systems on aircraft even if they are certified for aircraft use.
NHTSA is, in turn, concerned that if FAA were to ban harnesses and
backless booster seats from being used on aircraft, continuing to
permit the certification of those restraints for aircraft use could be
confusing to the public. Accordingly, this document proposes to require
manufacturers to label these restraints as not being for aircraft use.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by the agency no
later than July 10, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number
and be submitted in writing to: Docket Section, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5267. Docket hours are 9:30
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone 202-366-4919), or Ms. Deirdre
Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel (202-366-2992), National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590. For information on FAA's proposal, contact Ms. Donell Pollard
(AFS-203), Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service
(telephone 202-267-3735), Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to amend the
provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child
Restraint Systems,'' that permits child restraint systems to be
certified for use in both motor vehicles and aircraft. This rule
complements an FAA proposal, published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register, that would prohibit the use of booster seats, and vest- and
harness-type child restraint systems on aircraft even if the restraints
are certified for aircraft use.
The types of child restraint systems that are the subject of this
NPRM are harnesses and backless child restraints. A harness typically
consists of a vest or a series of straps that form a vest-like garment,
that attaches at the back of the harness to a vehicle seat's lap belt.
Harnesses are generally intended for children who weigh from 25 to 50
pounds, and some require the use of a tether strap to supplement the
lap belt. A backless child restraint system is a type of child booster
seat that has a structural element (typically a shield) designed to
restrain forward motion of the child's torso in a frontal crash.
Backless child restraint systems are generally intended for children
weighing from 30 to 60 pounds. [[Page 30697]] (``Backless child
restraint system'' is defined in S4 of FMVSS 213; see, 59 FR 37167,
July 21, 1994). Backless child restraint systems are also known as
``backless booster seats'' or ``shield-type'' booster seats.
Background
Standard 213 permits manufacturers to certify their restraints
1 for aircraft use if they are certified for use in motor vehicles
and meet an additional requirement, an inversion test. The provisions
permitting such certification were added to the standard in 1984 (49 FR
34357; August 30, 1984), partly in response to suggestions of the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that DOT simplify its
standards for the performance of child restraints on aircraft by
combining all technical requirements into a single standard (NTSB
Safety Recommendations A-83-1, February 24, 1983). Prior to the
amendment, FAA had its own child restraint standard, Technical Standard
Order C100 (TSO C100). TSO C100 and FMVSS 213 had different performance
requirements, methods of certification and testing procedures.
\1\ One type of child restraint, the ``belt positioning''
booster seat, is not eligible for such certification. These
restraints, which are intended for use by children weighing from 30
to 60 pounds, are designed for use with a lap/shoulder belt system.
FMVSS No. 213 does not permit these restraints to be certified for
aircraft use because aircraft passenger seats typically lack
shoulder belts. See amendment of FMVSS 213 to permit manufacture of
belt-positioning child seats (59 FR 37167; July 21, 1994). In its
NPRM, the FAA proposes to ban the use of belt-positioning booster
seats on airplanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1984 rulemaking, NHTSA and FAA concluded that the DOT child
restraint requirements should be consolidated in FMVSS 213 and that a
TSO C100 inversion test was the only performance requirement from the
FAA standard that needed to be incorporated into FMVSS 213. In the
inversion test, the combination of a child restraint, test dummy and
aircraft passenger seat is rotated to an inverted position and held
there. During the test, the child restraint must not experience any
failure or deformation that could seriously injure or prevent the
subsequent removal of the occupant.
Prior to the 1984 rulemaking, a manufacturer wishing to designate a
child restraint model as suitable for aircraft had to submit
information to FAA to obtain its approval of the model. As a result of
this pre-1984 approval process, there was a disparity between the
number of child restraints available for use in motor vehicles and the
number available for use in aircraft. In 1984, approximately 28 models
of child restraints were produced under FMVSS 213 for use in motor
vehicles. The child restraint manufacturers obtained TSO authorizations
for only five of the 28 models, or only 16 percent of the total
production of child restraints.
The lack of FAA approval of most motor vehicle child restraints for
use in aircraft aroused several safety concerns. One was that some
families traveling by air were discouraged from taking unapproved child
restraints with them and thus did not have them available for use at
their destination to protect their children while the family was
driving. The other concern was that those families who nevertheless
took their unapproved child restraints on trips had to stow the
restraints in the aircraft cargo compartment, and thus were not able to
use them to protect their children during the flight.
The effect of the 1984 rulemaking was to speed certification of
child restraints for use in aircraft, and thereby increase the
availability of aircraft-certified child restraints. Since then,
manufacturers have been able, under FMVSS 213, to ``self-certify''
their child restraints for aircraft use by ensuring that they pass all
of the standard's motor vehicle requirements and the inversion test. As
a result, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of child
restraints certified for use in aircraft.
FAA complemented NHTSA's rulemaking by amending its Federal
Aviation Regulations (FARs) (14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135) to
provide for the in-flight use of aircraft-certified child restraints.
The amendments required the air carriers to allow the use of any child
restraint having a labeling indicating that it is certified to FMVSS
213, manufactured under the standards of the United Nations, or
approved by a foreign government, as long as the restraint can be
secured to a forward-facing passenger seat. An infant or child who is
accompanied by a parent, guardian, or properly designated attendant and
who is properly placed in a device that meets the labeling requirements
of the FARs and that, in turn, is properly secured in an approved
aircraft seat using the safety belt, has been considered by FAA to
comply with its regulations requiring each person to occupy an approved
seat during takeoff and landing.
There are currently many different types of child restraint systems
that are certified as complying with FMVSS 213's motor vehicle and
aircraft requirements, and thus permitted by FAA for use on aircraft.
In addition to harnesses and shield boosters, these systems included
``infant seats,'' which position an infant so that the baby faces
toward the rear of the motor vehicle or aircraft; ``car beds,'' which
position the child laterally across the vehicle or aircraft seat; and
``convertible'' child seats, which convert so that they can be used
rear-facing with infants and forward-facing with toddlers. In addition,
there are restraint systems, such as the ``belly belt,'' that are
certified for use in airplanes by foreign countries. Belly belts
restrain a small child on the lap of an adult and consist of a short
loop of webbing with buckle hardware on the ends. The belt is buckled
around the child's abdomen and is secured to the adult's safety belt by
routing the adult's safety belt through a small loop of webbing sewn on
the belly belt. Belly belts are certified for airplane use by the Civil
Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom. However, belly belts cannot
meet the performance requirements of FMVSS 213 and therefore have not
been certified for use in the United States.
FAA Withdrawal of Approval
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, FAA is proposing to withdraw
approval for the use of harnesses and booster seats on aircraft. The
FAA is also emphasizing the existing prohibition in all aircraft
against the use of lap held child restraints, including belly belts.
The action responds to recent research by FAA's Civil Aeromedical
Institute (CAMI). The practical effect of that amendment would be to
ban all use of these restraints on aircraft.
The CAMI research is discussed in a report entitled, ``The
Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane Passenger
Seats,'' a copy of which has been placed in the NHTSA rulemaking docket
for this notice. (Persons wishing to obtain a copy of the report should
contact FAA at the address given in the ``For Further Information''
section at the beginning of this final rule document.) CAMI dynamically
tested six types of restraining devices: Child harnesses, booster
seats, rear-facing infant seats, convertible child restraint systems,
airplane seat lap belts, and belly belts. The first four devices were
evaluated for their ability to fit and adjust to an airplane passenger
seat and lap belt. The lap belt was evaluated for its ability to secure
test dummies representative of children two and three years old. Fit
and adjustment was not considered an issue for the installation of the
belly belt. All of the devices were evaluated for their performance in
aircraft seats with and without ``breakover'' seat backs (a breakover
feature allows the seat back to rotate forward easily when impacted by
an occupant from behind). [[Page 30698]] They were also evaluated,
using anthropomorphic test dummies representing children, for their
ability to limit occupant head excursion, head and chest acceleration
and abdominal forces. In addition, the test program evaluated the
effect that the impact load of an ``aft row occupant'' had on the
performance of a child restraint located in an aircraft seat
immediately in front of the aft row occupant. The aft row occupant
impact load was generated in tests called ``double row tests,'' using
an adult test dummy placed in the aft row seat.
Booster Seat Tests
CAMI tested four models of shield-type booster seats in six dynamic
tests, three of which involved single row tests, and the other three,
double row tests. With regard to fit and adjustment of the booster
seats to the airplane seat, CAMI found that three had fit and
adjustment problems. One booster seat had problems fitting an airplane
seat because of the limited width between arm rests on the passenger
seat. This may have occurred because of the difference in width between
the representative aircraft seat (about 20 inches wide) used in FMVSS
213 and the aircraft seat (17.25 inches wide) used in the CAMI testing.
Two booster seats had incompatibility problems between the buckle/
webbing path molded in the front shield and the airplane web path and
buckle position of the lap belt on the airplane passenger seat used by
CAMI. In fact, the webbing could not be installed over the front shield
in accordance with the positioning instruction of the booster seats'
manufacturers. CAMI also found that one of the four booster seats
failed structurally, and two of the others allowed forward head
excursion in excess of the 32-inch distance permitted by FMVSS 213.
CAMI also found a problem with the loads that the child dummies
restrained in the tested booster seats experienced when the boosters
were on a seat with a breakover seat back and exposed to loads from the
aft row occupant. Its tests showed that loads from an aft row adult
occupant resulted in an increase in abdominal loading of the dummy in a
booster seat, as compared to the abdominal loading of a dummy in an
aircraft lap belt with an adult aft-row occupant. The CAMI study states
that, when placed in a seat with a breakover seat back, the booster
seat encounters problems because:
With no back shell, the typical booster seat does not provide
protection from the forces transmitted by the airplane seat back
during horizontal impact conditions. Traditionally, restraint
systems in airplanes have been designed to avoid loads transmitted
to the soft tissues of the abdomen. A child restrained in a booster
seat may be forced against the rigid shield due to the seat back
breakover action. For the intended size of children in booster
seats, the load path of these breakover forces may include the
abdominal region.
It is to be noted that CAMI also found that the abdominal loads on
a child dummy placed in a shield-type booster seat secured to an
airplane seat with a locked seat back were higher than on a child dummy
secured in a typical airplane seat lap belt with a locked seat back.
The FAA recognizes in its NPRM, however, that there are no accepted
criteria to assess the relationship between differences in measured
levels of abdominal loadings and any resulting risk of abdominal
injury, and the type and severity of such injury.
Harness Tests
CAMI tested one type of harness restraint. The restraint consisted
of a torso vest with straps over the shoulders and around the waist,
and a crotch strap. The shoulder and abdomen straps were attached to a
rectangular metal plate on the back of the restraint. The airplane lap
belts were routed through a loop of webbing attached to the metal back
plate on the restraint.
The restraint was tested with a three-year-old test dummy in two
single row tests. CAMI found incompatibility problems between the
harness and the airplane seat lap belts: ``With the lap belts adjusted
to the minimum length, the [harness] could be moved forward
approximately 7 inches before tension was developed in the belts. This
was considered unsatisfactory for testing.'' CAMI also found grossly
excessive excursion of the child anthropomorphic test dummy(ATD)
restrained in the harness:
The ATD moved forward and over the front edge of the seat
cushion and proceeded to submarine toward the floor. Elasticity in
the webbing of the harness and the lap belts then heaved the ATD
rearward. The force pulling the ATD back into the seat appeared to
be applied by the Gz [crotch] strap directly through the pubic
symphysis of the pelvic bone.
Based on this finding, CAMI concluded that a harness performs
poorly in protecting the child occupant.
NHTSA Proposal
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that, if FAA were to adopt its
proposed ban on the use of harnesses and backless booster seats on
aircraft, consumers would be confused if manufacturers were to continue
nevertheless to certify these types of restraints for aircraft use.
Accordingly, NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS 213 to require manufacturers
to label these child restraint systems as not being for use on
aircraft. The standard already requires that belt-positioning booster
seats be so labeled.
In issuing this proposal, NHTSA believes that it is important to
emphasize several points about the use and performance of child
restraints. First, there are significant differences between the
seating environment of motor vehicles and that of aircraft. Second,
because of those differences, the problems encountered with child
restraint use in aircraft are not encountered with child restraint use
in motor vehicles. Therefore, notwithstanding this proposal, the use of
harnesses and booster seats in motor vehicles continues to be important
for child safety.
The problems reported by CAMI, i.e., the combined effects of
aircraft seatback breakover designs and aft occupant impacts, are not
encountered in motor vehicles. The seat back in a motor vehicle is
designed to remain fixed in a crash and not ``breakover'' in the manner
of an airplane seat. Also, a vehicle seat containing a child restraint
is less likely to be impacted from the rear by an adult than is an
aircraft containing a child restraint. There are several reasons for
this. First, child restraints are recommended for use in the rear
vehicle seating positions. Thus, if a child restraint is installed as
recommended, there will not, in most cases, be any passenger rearward
of the child restraint who could impact and load the seat containing
the child restraint in the event of a frontal crash. Exceptions would
be in vehicles, such as vans and some station wagons, which have three
rows of seats. Second, if there were a passenger seated behind the seat
containing a child restraint, and that person were sitting in an
outboard seating position, the person would have a lap/shoulder belt
system available for use. Most aircraft lack shoulder belts. If the
vehicle passenger were restrained by that belt system, the person would
not load the seat with the child restraint in the manner observed in
the CAMI study. Third, given the number of persons typically carried in
a motor vehicle, it is unlikely there would be an adult seated behind a
child in a child restraint, regardless of the number or pattern of
seats in the vehicle.
Further, harnesses and other child restraints are tested under
FMVSS 213 on a seat assembly that is representative of a motor vehicle
seat, and that is equipped with a safety belt
[[Page 30699]] representative of the lap belt in the center rear
seating position. In its compliance testing, the agency has not found a
problem between the vehicle lap belt and a child harness such as that
found by CAMI between an airplane lap belt and a harness. In addition,
NHTSA has not found in its compliance testing the type of fit and
adjustment problems between booster seats and the vehicle seats that
CAMI found between booster seats and the aircraft seats.
Booster seats could fit better on vehicles than aircraft in part
because of the design of the belt restraints with which the boosters
are attached to the vehicle. The position of the buckle for an aircraft
seat belt assembly is very different from that of a buckle for a
vehicle seat belt assembly. An aircraft seat belt assembly is designed
so that when it is buckled, the buckle is located midway between the
anchorages, in front of the user's abdomen. A motor vehicle lap/
shoulder belt or lap-only belt is designed so that the buckle is
located to the side of the user's torso, near the hip, when the belt is
buckled.
Another reason for believing that the problems reported by CAMI are
not indicative of the performance of child restraints in motor vehicles
is the difference between the crash pulse used by CAMI and the crash
pulse used in FMVSS 213 testing. In its testing of head excursion, head
and chest acceleration and abdominal forces, CAMI used a crash pulse
appropriate for aircraft. FMVSS 213 testing, by contrast, involves the
use of a motor vehicle crash pulse.
In view of the problems revealed by the CAMI testing, NHTSA and FAA
will consider whether there is a need for future rulemaking to improve
FMVSS 213's requirements for aircraft-certified child restraints other
than harnesses and booster seats. The agencies are developing possible
requirements and procedures that could improve the assessment of the
performance of child restraint systems in the aircraft environment.
Among other issues, the agencies will consider whether the seat
assembly used under FMVSS 213 in testing child restraints for aircraft
use sufficiently represents an aircraft passenger seat. Child
restraints certified as complying with FMVSS 213's aircraft
requirements are currently tested on a ``representative aircraft
passenger seat'' (S7.3 of FMVSS 213). FMVSS 213 also specifies that FAA
approved aircraft safety belts are used to test child restraints that
are certified to the aircraft requirements.
Proposed Effective Date
The proposed effective date is 90 days after the publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has evaluated the impacts of this proposal and has determined
that it is significant within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The rulemaking
action is significant because of the substantial public interest in
issues involving child seats on aircraft. This rule is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
While this action is significant because of the public interest
associated with it, NHTSA tentatively concludes that a rule resulting
from this notice would have minimal impacts. In 1991, there were an
estimated 1,200,000 booster seats produced. The consumer cost of a
label is estimated to be $0.09 to $0.17, and total annual costs of a
separate label range from $108,000 to $204,000. However, adding a
sentence to the existing label, most likely the course of action taken
in response to this rulemaking, would cost much less. This cost might
be $0.01 per label, resulting in a total annual cost of $12,000. There
is an added economic benefit of this proposed rule. Since booster seats
would no longer be permitted to be certified for aircraft, there would
be no need to perform the inversion test. Thus, testing costs to the
child restraint manufacturer would be slightly reduced.
The agency is concerned whether this rulemaking action could affect
consumers' use of booster seats before and after the air portion of
their trips. In the 1984 rulemaking that allowed child restraints to be
certified for use on motor vehicles and aircraft, NHTSA recognized that
parents might not use child restraints to transport their children to
and from the airport if the child restraint could not be used on the
aircraft. The data indicated that child safety was not a critical issue
for aircraft in terms of the number of child deaths, but that it was a
large problem for motor vehicles before and after the flight. Many
State laws that require the use of child seats in motor vehicles do not
cover all the ages of children that might use booster seats. If booster
seats may not be used on aircraft, and if parents are not willing to
stow them with their luggage, NHTSA is concerned about the possibility
that they could be left home altogether. As a result, the number of
child injuries in motor vehicle accidents might increase. NHTSA
requests comments on how it should assess this issue. The agency is
particularly interested in information concerning how many of these
booster seats are currently in use and on the availability of booster
seats at car rental agencies.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposal under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule, if
adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Of the 11 current child restraint
manufacturers known to the agency (not counting manufacturers of built-
in restraints), there are six that qualify as small businesses. This is
not a substantial number of small entities. Regardless of the number of
small entities, the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on these entities. As noted above, the labeling costs associated
with this rulemaking would be minimal. Further, the agency believes
sales of booster seats would be minimally affected by this rulemaking,
if at all. NHTSA believes almost all consumers decide to purchase a
child restraint based on their intent to use the restraint in a motor
vehicle, not in aircraft.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The agency
has determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not
identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the State
requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to
vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
[[Page 30700]] forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules
establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may
file suit in court.
Submission of Comments on This Proposal
There is a 30-day comment period for this notice. The FAA provides
a 30-day comment period for its proposal. NHTSA believes the comment
period for the agencies' proposals should be identical since the two
rulemaking actions complement each other. The comment period is shorter
than 60 days so that FAA can expeditiously assess what action should be
taken to address what that agency has tentatively concluded to be a
possible safety problem.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed
rule. It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above address both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Comments received too late for
consideration in regard to the proposal will be considered as
suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments will be available
for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file relevant
information as it becomes available in the docket after the closing
date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine
the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Part 571 as set forth below.
PART 571--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.213 would be amended by revising S5.5.2(n) to read
as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * * * *
(n) Child restraint systems, other than belt-positioning seats,
harnesses and backless child restraint systems, that are certified as
complying with the provisions of section S8, shall be labeled with the
statement ``This Restraint is Certified for Use in Motor Vehicles and
Aircraft.'' Belt-positioning seats, harnesses and backless child
restraint systems shall be labeled with the statement ``This Restraint
is Not Certified for Use in Aircraft.'' The statement required by this
paragraph shall be in red lettering and shall be placed after the
certification statement required by paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
Issued on May 19, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-12801 Filed 6-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
